I don't think you understand what we're getting at. Simply put, we're saying that how the blaster itself works is not favorable as a Large turret, and we're asking for a restructure of some kind, and the going ideas are shotgun turret or PLC turret, or some variation between the two. True is saying PLC or tri shot shotgun, Pokey is saying he gets why all works, but (I think) wants the shotgun turret. I personally want the shotgun turret to be it due to it working far better by design in CQ, especially on moving targets and while moving (which keeps other HAV's from hitting you, a good thing for a CQC brawler).

Agreed

Dunno if you've been tanking recently, but armor is in a really sad place right now. One hardener just doesn't do near enough attenuation. Its only use is on a dropship, where you have a better chance of escaping swarms. There's no reason for shield to be nerfed. Vehicles have been nerfed enough times to last a lifetime. Armor needs to be at the level shields are at, not bringing shields down to the level armor is at. If that were to be the case, then there'd be no reason to use vehicles at all, and the few pilots that are left would either leave, or go 100% infantry, which is what infantry seems to want anyway. Dunno why they can't find a different game to ruin.

You should ask him the last time he's played. (I checked)

I've been playing the blaster a bit more of late. It's decent V vs V. With a standard blaster (impossible to do better on my maddie) I tend to hold my own against certain fits, coming out on top many times.

Though as a few have mentioned, and now something I've seen for myself, a double hardened gunnlogi will out perform it. There just isn't a possibility to break through that regen. I think addressing that with a blaster would make it perform much better in a close encounter with another tank.

Blaster fire should at the very least, PAUSE SHIELD REGEN.

I have found I hate more than anything encountering double hardened gunnlogis with a blaster when I KNOW I should hold a large advantage given my turret rotation and bonus damage against shields. I SHOULD hold an advantage, not necessarily translating into a win, but an advantage if these things are used correctly.

As it is, blaster fire is stonewalled against that which it should be strong against, shields, double hardened or not.

But to offer my suggestion, a decrease to RoF and an increase to damage per shot, should allow it to punch through the shield regen. A lower RoF would also decrease the dispersion build up slightly I assume, making it a little easier with infantry, but a huge difference against larger targets at range.

I think the blaster is set at 150M range but in reality you need to be within 50 - 75 meters to cause any noticeable damage to large targets largely due to the horrible dispersion.

Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect.

These kind of arguments don't even make sense.

I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post.

Link

-First graph: Damage Over Time

*This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s.

There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph.

However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt.

-Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time

The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time.

-Third graph: CPU Vs PG

Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun.

-My suggestions:
I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change.

I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph.

Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700.

So the large missile launcher will only be viable on the Caldari DHAV, and nothing else? You've missed the point I was trying to make. Each turret should be equally viable, independent of which hull you put it on. The DHAV is only there for specialization, not for making a useless turret viable.

Look at the turrets themselves, and forget about the hulls for the moment. What if every infantry weapon was only viable on one dropsuit and each dropsuit only affected one weapon? You wouldn't like that, would you?

You still don't get it, do you? It shouldn't take a role bonus just so that a useless weapon is on par with another weapon that requires no bonuses to be useful?

Stop trolling around and go find some other game to ruin.

Will you guys stop calling standard stuff basic!? Also you guys realize that proto hardeners give the same damage reduction as militia, so stop comparing stuff to specifically proto hardeners.

Please, I didn't make the graphs and an attempt at constructive feedback to show that the large missile launcher is not on par with the other turrets only to have you come around and try to make senseless arguments and claims that it's perfectly fine for a weapon to be useless if there's a role bonus that puts it on par with the other weapons.

Lol at player who suggests a main gun that fires every 1.8 seconds takes skill to use.