Any way to put a large blaster on a Incubus?
The small blaster is hard to kill anything and its av use not to good.
Third person Turrent reticle is not were the first person view is.
And I think the first person view is the only one that has a shot at killing anything

Otherwise, if all three turrets had equal AI capabilities, then AV power should definitely scale with optimal range.

I think the currently 'proposed' blaster will end up being something that harvests maximum tears from infantry if it functions identically to the variant we have in game.

By changing to to be a shotgun style turret you can make it so its still 'technically' able to shoot infantry, but it isn't ultra-hyper lethal to them as only a few pellets would hit, as opposed to shooting at vehicles where all pellets are likely to hit.

If we were to give it a RPM of 100 (one round every .6s) that's only marginally faster than current shotguns (.7s repeat) and it would allow for 1200 damage (still hitting 2000dps) @ 8 pellets its 150/pellet or @ 10 it's 120/pellet. I'd suggest having spread that's roughly installation sized @ 130m and half that @ 65m.

This should make it still be threatening to infantry but prevent the fun ruining blaster tanks of 1.7 from making a return and it keeps the large turret far more oriented towards av than ai.

Well as I've said before I don't have an issue with Large Blasters being the most proficient of the Large Turrets at killing infantry, and the weakest AV turret overall. However small turrets still need to outperform it in terms of AP, and underperfom against it in general in terms of AV.

Mostly worst due to its limited range. Up close it should still dominate the other two, but because its small operational range its going to struggle as AV in a lot of cases.

I'm worried that with the current proposal of UHAVs and DHAVs, DHAVs will be obsolete to UHAVs and UHAVs will get nerfed to become the obsolete ones.

UHAV: stronger defense, better anti-infantry capabilities
DHAV: weaker defense, better anti-vehicle capabilities

But here's the real problem: how much of a stronger defense should the UHAV have over the DHAV? And how much better at AV should the DHAV be? Say that the UHAV has twice as strong of a defense, then the DHAV needs at least a 100% damage boost to its large turret to successfully deal with the UHAV.

I just fear that DHAVs will be unnecessarily weak and will be popping all over the place while UHAVs will be stomping around, slaughtering infantry and using their better defense to even the playing field against DHAVs.

I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court.

I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions.

1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close.

2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage.

Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target.

shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank.

Not that bad if the refire rate is decent. I mean hitting a large target like an HAV from 30m would be easy as hell, infantry tricky but doable with a handful of shots.

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.

The numbers in Rattatis proposal have the large blaster doing double dps, with a smaller clip, about 50% more damage per shot and slightly more heat build up. Controlled bursts are going to be amazing so don't worry about the shotgun model.

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.

My question to you is, why would anyone ever have small turrets? Under your model it would make sense that Large AP turrets would be innately better than Small AP turrets, right?. Would it not make more sense to just run 3 solo tanks together, rather than put the 3 pilots in the same tank at that point, since 3 Large AP Turrets > 1 Large + 2 Small AP turrets?

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.

Allow me to put the missile falloff thing to bed Now.

Since someone is bringing a real life thing in I will explain why your logic is failing
fuel adding to payload only happens when firing said missiles at lightly armored targets. It is most useful for spreading "soft" munitions like napalm and shrapnel.

Armor penetration and anti-ship missiles utilize a shaped charge warhead with a two stage detonation.

The first stage breaches the armor on the hull and the secondary charge pushes through to detonate inside the target, causing overpressure and heat to liquefy and incinerate crew and eject tgeir reremains through the hole which is rarely larger than a man's fist. Because the fuel is behind the twin detonations it usually is destroyed and ejected outward to cause secondary damage outside. This is a drop in the bucket because the tank is already dead and antiship missiles can blow a cruiser in half with the charge alone.

Fuel has very little overall effect except in the case of fighter craft which are so fragile that a dime tossed into the intake can make the turbines explode. Missiles used to kill modern aircraft rairly strike directly, depending on the nearby airburst to tear tge bird apart with shrapnel and concussive force. THAT is where the fuel payload matters.

the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive.

Blaster DPS in my chart is actually lower than current slightly Godin.

Interesting, I never found the double hardeners nearly as effective as stacking HP with a single hardener. At max with double hardeners you get 30 seconds, leaving you very vulnerable afterwards. I thought though that double stacking hardeners didn't make you invulnerable to blaster fire. Thought this was fixed quite a while ago.

Double hardeners used to be a big thing, and last I tried which was after changes to the rail and such, it wasn't nearly as strong as it used to be. Even against blaster fire. Been a while since I messed with it though.

closer to 3

Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster.

I personally think that in general, large blasters should have better AI capabilities than the other large turrets and lesser AV capabilities than the other large turrets. It could be done by relative damage output, by relative optimal engagement ranges, etc. As long as it can fit itself on the AI-AV spectrum as Pokey has mentioned a while back:

(In order of increasing/decreasing AV/AI): small blaster, missile, railgun, large blaster, missile, railgun.

There needs to be an escalation in order to bring out missile and railgun HAVs, and I see the large blaster as the first step in the escalation. A HAV fitted primarily for AI will pose a big threat to enemy infantry (at the expense of being susceptible to enemy vehicles), and this will cause the enemy team to start fielding AV oriented HAVs. I see it no different from an infantryman with a rifle being susceptible to enemy vehicles, or an AV infantryman being susceptible to enemy infantry.

In short, there needs to be a way for vehicles to pose a direct threat to infantry. Without that, they have no purpose beyond transport and WP for the enemy. I see pilots as removing themselves from the position to capture objectives, but should instead help their fellow infantry to capture objectives by putting pressure on the enemy infantry. Then you get other pilots removing themselves from the infantry battle in order to engage the enemy vehicle that's putting pressure on infantry.

Because rails, which outrange everything else, will always be a superior option to something that needs to be within 75 meters to cause any significant damage. There are so many more options when your engagement zone is within 300 meters over 75 (greater than that yes but dispersion plays a large role in preventing this).

I never said blasters are good at AV (or as you say "I think it's fine"). Not good in the way you mean. Considering their dual purposes of being AI and AV, they shouldn't be good at one or the other as people think they should be. And the way I understand it, rattati was talking about giving the large blaster AI capabilities, through the active module. In which case they shouldn't even be considered to be greater than a dedicated AV large turret like the rail. Get my drift?

Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for going against the conventional train of thought. I have my own thoughts that clearly don't mesh with the mainstream going around. I say the large blaster should be made AI, with limited AV capabilities, or AV with limited AI capabilities. But in the latter, they will still always falter to a rail. Range is a huge determining factor and very easy to use to your advantage against something that can't even shoot back.

Most often, even when blasters were king, the best way to deal with them was always the rail, where a blaster would always struggle against a rail that used the greatest advantage range, to their benefit. No matter how strong you make the blaster, a rail with range will always be greater.

What is it that you are saying then? Are you saying the large turret should be focused on killing HAV's solely or AI solely?

In any case, having one that does AI gives rise to a purpose for the AV. Else why call a tank in as all they can do is kill other vehicles that doesn't contribute to a win overall in any capacity. Better off running infantry and playing the points. Given gunners can make this possible, it just doesn't seem to pan out the way it should.

You are right, Tanks have no goal. But how is making the strictly AV to give them roles? If all they do is kill other tanks, why is there need for them on the field? Might as well have your own tank game mode, as infantry will have no use for you as you aren't adding anything to the battle.

1. This isn't true. You can have all the cover in the world, but that also provides a benefit to those on the other end as well. I use cover myself as a railer to overcome blasters, missiles or rails. A blaster with cover doesn't mean an automatic win, far from it. That same cover you use to hide can be used by myself to hide as well. With the advantage of range, I have more options to hit you from, limiting your contribution to the battle. I don't need to outright kill you, but I assure you in time I will. And I'll do it from 300 meters out if I have to but it will be done. If anything though in that time I've kept you occupied and unable to make any meaning contribution to the field.

2. It's a game, it doesn't have to make sense from a reality point of view. (and shouldn't from a balancing perspective)

3. Cool man, can we have a level headed discussion or would you rather bash me because you find me an "idiot" from your perspective.

4. This is EXACTLY the point I illustrated with my ultra long reply. Though I still contend that it's far easier to keep a target at range then it is to get within range when your own is limited in comparison. I can pump the target full of rounds with a rail as it approaches me, where a blaster just has to take it to get in range. You say use cover to get in range of course, but I'm no newb to this tactic and openly expect it and counter for it when I come across a blaster. Moving back, locating its position and reacting accordingly. Ever using my greatest advantage over it. If I have to, I'll pull back into the redline to get it.

As I know once I lose that advantage, I will be at a disadvantage or on even ground. To ensure the win, I will have the upper hand. And that's easier to get when I have the superior range.

Honestly talking about absolute DPS is pointless if we don't know what the final eHP of vehicles is going to be. What's important is the relative differences between the DPS and function of each turret. They can all be raised or lowered later (once we have more information on vehicle eHP) if they are balanced between one another.

^

Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled.

What? Which lesson was I teaching?

I am still interested in Dust. Just wondering what the latest changes are working but the Nerf to large turrets is a concern. Of course I might have logged in bug my DS3 controller just bit the ... dirt. Hardly works well enough to play a DVD and navigating Dust menus was way too much trouble for the little thing (always headed left which exits many selections).

Sorry if you felt like you were being called out. Must be a chip on your shoulder.
I know Godin was one of few tankers on my level back in the old days, but pretty sure he was rail. I've seen spkr in a tank a lot but never blaster, mostly rails, sometimes missiles. I see breakin stuff breakin stuff a lot, but that's on foot lol.
(but he also admits he is pure foot action)

Or don't use a basic blaster fit.

Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret.

Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges?

A Blaster COULD be a turret I would use. Shotgun could work if it is implemented correctly. Keep those auto shotguns away from its design and you might have a winner.

Thaddeus said burst fire could work as well but you'd need a proper down time between the bursts.