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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Full Balance of Large Turrets

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4554	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:26:00 - [1] - Quote You're basically always going to have issues with any turret that has a high fire rate and lots of shots in the magazine, like the Large Blaster, when it comes to Turret vs Infantry balance. As it is now dispersion is pretty high but even 1-2 shot bursts can land shots pretty close to where you want them to go. This is of course an element of luck involved in hitting infantry with a Large Blaster but the fact of the matter is that you can still do it consistently enough to cause issues, and rightfully so as the weapon is supposed to be AV. It is far easier to consistently kill infantry with a Large Blaster than it is a Railgun or Missile turret. The immediate reaction is "Oh just increase dispersion further" but you quickly get to the point where dispersion is so bad you can't even hit a vehicle properly with enough shots to deal appreciable damage which is part of what makes the Large Blaster so horrible at AV. Dropping the fire rate and upping the damage might help but might also be worse. It means that while less shots are going out, it takes all that much fewer lucky shots to drop an infantry, so it's questionable if that will change much at all. What is also problematic is that "Short Range" for a vehicle is vastly different for an infantry. Meaning that even though the blaster is "Short Range" for a vehicle, it's actual range is seemingly much larger for infantry trying to take cover. It might be a bit ambitious but I think a general redesign on how a Large Blaster fires would be the best solution. The two best proposals in my opinion are as follows: Shotgun Blaster: I've always felt the Shotgun really hit the nail on the head of what a blaster is, which is surprise up-close "OH KITTEN!" damage which is basically going to rip anything apart that's close to it. If the Large Blaster could fire like a shotgun, preferably lots of pellets with a low damage per pellet, in full auto mode with a pretty slot refire rate, you could achieve a true Blaster feel. Dispersion is tight enough to reliably hit the majority of your pellets onto a large target at 30-40m but would struggle to do a lot of damage to a small target due to low pellet damage. I don't know if you guys can retrofit the shotgun fire mode to a turret and playtest it internally, but if you can give it a go and see how it feels. Plasma Cannon: This also hits that Blaster feel pretty damn well. The "I dunno if I"m going hit you but if I do, it's going to hurt". I believe it was True Adamance that came up with this one, but essentially to fire either a 3 burst of Plasma Cannon shots or a triangle of them. This is fairly self explanatory, but at close range you could easily land all 3 shots on a large target, but hitting a small target would be....well about as hard as consistently doing it with a Infantry PLC. It's kind of a variant of the shotgun, just with very few, but higher damage 'pellets'. Damage per shot should obviously be lower than a PLC. Again if internal playtesting is possible, I'd love to see how this sort of concept performs. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4556	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:02:00 - [2] - Quote Harpyja wrote: The issue with making the large blaster the best CQC AV turret will make missiles rather worthless. Unless if the large blaster is limited to an incredibly short range like 50 meters, the large railgun will simply be better at AV than missiles beyond the large blaster's optimal. Compared to large missiles, large railguns have 1) higher accuracy, 2) faster projectile speed, and 3) higher damage per shot. This makes it much easier to hit targets at range and you don't have to land as many shots to deal the necessary damage. Also add in the proposed higher splash radius and damage and it's better suited to killing infantry as well. The only way I see to keep missiles competitive is to give them slight passive tracking abilities against vehicles. Meaning, each missile will automatically guide itself with limited capabilities to the vehicle closest to where the user is aiming (maybe a slight redesign of the reticle to show this target area where missiles will passively track vehicles). This is to allow the large missile turret to be usable at longer ranges (since currently if you've ever used one you'll know that it's only effective up to about 100 meters) and be able to apply the only thing that makes it good: its alpha DPS. I agree. For a turret which sports (I believe) 300m range...good luck hitting anything that's moving at 300m. I think if you make Missiles more viable at medium to long range, either by some passive tracking or higher missile velocity, you can afford to tone down its DPS to a more reasonable level so you're not instablapping Madrugars. Currently, as you stated, Missiles are restricted to be a short to medium range weapon which I don't think was the intention, nor is it really in line with EVE standards of missiles being fairly long range within their size class. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4558	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:14:00 - [3] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I like the blaster in its form of a vehicle mounted assault rifle. I also like that it is an AI-capable weapon. Again, this ties HAVs into the escalation of a match very nicely. However, if any turret has AI-capabilities - that means if HAVs are part of the rest of the match - then this AI-capability has to be factored in with the 'utility' of the turret. If one turret is good at AV and also good at AI it's going to be plain more useful than another turret that is only capable of AV. That is how we got to the recent situation where the blaster was exceptional against infantry but fell short against vehicles. These days it's bad against both AI and AV. There are three levers here. AI capability, AV capability and fitting requirements. I don't think we have to reduce the problem to "all turrets have equal AI capability of zero, equal AV capability and equal fitting requirements". I'd prefer it the most if the types of turrets (not size) determined their roles: Blasters: best at AI, worst at AV Missiles: good at both Railguns: best at AV, worst at AI I think the large blaster fell perfectly in its role before it got the dispersion nerf. It was the best at AI but the worst at AV, and people seemed to forget that you need as much skill to aim it as you do with any other weapon. It never did the aiming for you. Yes and No. I think it should go on a gradient scale <------------Best AP---------------------------------------------------Best AV------------> Small Blaster - Small Missile - Small Rail - Large Blaster - Large Missile - Large Rail However when I say that I mean in a generalist, broad sense. Typically speaking burst damage and range are going to excel in AV capabilities, which is why Rails do so well. However that's in a broad sense, and I think that even though Railguns are considered better AV than a Blaster overall, if a Railgun and a Blaster get into a brawl at close range, the Blaster should still be superior. So in general yes, the Large Blaster is more AP than AV compared to the Rail, but it should still outperform the rail when within its optimal range. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4562	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:01:00 - [4] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Is possible to readd the types of turrets from Pre 1.7? That way you have variations? Variants are an obvious step but I feel the base turrets themselves need work, and since variants are built of the base turrets, it would be ill advised to implement them at this time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4563	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:37:00 - [5] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. Just make a blaster turret AI!! IT WAS MEANT TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Souce? The only official stance I've ever seen is that Large Turrets are AV, small turrets are AP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:07:00 - [6] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Whatever is AP/AI get's nerfed to sht because infantry cry... There was not a single good complaint between chromosome and 1.6 about large blaster turrets. Than CCP messed them up. They need to go back to the way they were. Blasters being AV is some bull crap started by Rattati. Actually Large Blasters were absurdly good at killing infantry, and it was a huge problem. And that's coming from someone who used them a shitload back in the day. I would constantly get infantry kills in situations and ranges where I had not business getting said kills. Tell me, if Large Blasters are supposed to be AP, then what is the purpose of Small Blasters? The same thing but weaker? How do you plan to balance those two without making one over or underpowered? "That little s*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:28:00 - [7] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Tell me, if light weapons are AP like Combat Rifle with DPS of 600. Isn't it on to have a combat rifle like side arm (SMG) with lower DPS as a secondary? Anyway, false, they were good but not OP. HMG has more DPS than a blaster turret, hell even a ScR had more DPS than a blaster turret. Not to mention that the good Proto Blaster turret used to be 1 million frekin isk compared to HMG that was 47k isk. The range was good and expected from a large Turret. It was good in close quarters and was viable in medium range up up to about 50-60m. You really can't make a direct comparison with sidearms because they're intended as a backup weapon, whereas small turrets are meant to be operated by another player in conjunction with the main pilot. I mean sure a pilot can swap to an empty small turret but that would be like saying "You can swap to your sidearm but now you can't move". Such a direct comparison doesn't work. You're also trying to compare an HMG/Scrambler Rifle (an infantry weapon) to a large turret (a vehicle weapon). If I'm on foot and someone comes at me with a scrambler rifle, I have an option to shoot back and possibly kill him before he kills me. If the enemy is using a Large Blaster, I have to have a specific type of weapon if I want to retaliate, and at any appreciable range I have to have my main weapon be an AV weapon if I want to fight back. You're comparing apples and oranges. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:22:00 - [8] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. 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 Or just make Small Blasters perform better? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:19:00 - [9] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: What if somebody is firing at you with a ScR from 60m away and all you are wielding is nova knives and a flaylock? Can't fight back can you? This is the same as if a blaster tank is getting shot at by forges from 200-300m away. He can't fight back. Oh lawd. You're cherry picking specific extreme situations to push your point and it's not going to work. Obviously the Blaster will struggle to fight against a long range weapon, because it's a short range weapon. That's not what we're talking about. What I'm talking about is that if Large Blasters are an AP weapon, a tank driver is capable of easily killing any infantry within the range of the Large Blaster. However infantry are completely incapable of retaliating in any shape or form at any range or situation unless they are using very specific weapons. You're trying to create a situation where a solo tanker can roll around, Immune to like 95% of all the infantry weapons in the game, but be extremely effective against 100% of the infantry in the game. Just no. Large Turrets are AV. Small Turrets are AP. Ratatti has spoken. Get over it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:45:00 - [10] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG Not really sure how a gun that does 1725 damage every 2.25 seconds equates to 2000 DPS.... Time Dilation? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4586	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:19:00 - [11] - Quote Harpyja wrote: It would be balanced if said AP blaster HAV was rather defenseless against AV HAVs. Just like AV infantry pose a threat to vehicles but are vulnerable to other infantry, the blaster HAV should pose a threat to infantry while being vulnerable to other vehicles. It just a simple mirrored balance. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:11:00 - [12] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: It would be balanced if said AP blaster HAV was rather defenseless against AV HAVs. Just like AV infantry pose a threat to vehicles but are vulnerable to other infantry, the blaster HAV should pose a threat to infantry while being vulnerable to other vehicles. It just a simple mirrored balance. 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. Being in general the worst large turret for AV is a terrible idea. They should be similarly cumbersome for use against infantry. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:17:00 - [13] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: I don't know what Rattati is thinking but he's abusing his power. There was obviously things set in place by previous devs and he's rewriting the system. It's like changing the logo of Apple after Steve Jobs died. You just don't change stuff that has worked for years. Except for 1.7 when Blasters were OP AF up to the dispersion nerf. Lol abusing his power? You speak like this is supposed to be a democracy. Blamm couldn't even figure out which direction was up on a turret, I'm not going to simply go off his misguided vision for the sake of precedent. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4589	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:40:00 - [14] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Oh, that's what you mean by worst. Okay. Well, that's really relative to the geography of the map. Lots of hills and such and lots of cover like the newer maps would be much better for blasters to work in compared to say a rail (but if indirect artys were a thing, I could see where you're coming from). Yeah its worst in a situational sense. Railguns having a massive range lets them apply damage in a wide array of situations, but would get pounded up close with a blaster. So Rails would be "the best AV" in most situations, but still falter in some situations where other turrets excel. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4590	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:25:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Still not convinced rapid firing turrets are the right way to go for tank combat but we'll see what happens with the feed back from this thread. I'd prefer bursts of damage for large turrets, not the high fire rate that we have now. Either the shotgun idea or the multi-PLC shot idea. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4591	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:42:00 - [16] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4591	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:47:00 - [17] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: check the link in my sig. I put a tab for heavy missile turrets. the stats in red are for my counterproposal to the current turrets. They are intended for AV and suppression and area saturation of munitions. The TL;DR for those who don't understand Rattati spreadsheets: The missile turret functions more like an MLRS. I recommend the use of the swarm missile animation for maximum fun explosion visuals and missile trails. the HAV carries 300 missiles in the magazine for 30 volleys of 10 missiles before reloading. Each missile does 75 damage direct. each missile has a 1m splash for 25 damage. total alpha per volley is 750 refire delay is 1 second. Missiles should be FASTER than the current heavy missiles Intended to be medium range/medium DPS AV and infantry suppression platform. It should be both destructive and visually intimidating enough to make the rats scatter. Dispersion should not be narrow enough to hit a dropsuit with more than a couple per volley directly. It should not be wide enough that it resembles a damn shotgun scatter. It needs to be able to hit an HAV at between 75-150m consistently. Have fun. This is hardly my only turret concept. this represents a prototype turret. Quantity of Rockets over Quality. Well it would look freaking awesome, that's for sure. My obvious concern is how it performs against infantry but that's something that would have to be play tested and can't really be determined via the numbers. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4591	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:04:00 - [18] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality. What are we suppose to do, fight those tanks that nobody spawns in? Destroy turrets for WP? Destroy Supply depots? AV solo tanks, tanks can't solo AV infantry. You're supposed to play as a team. Those small turrets are not there just to look pretty, put people behind them. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:11:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:34:00 - [20] - Quote I think the balance will become increasingly more difficult as the roles get more extreme they deviate from the center line standard HAV. I typically take a more conservative approach in cases like this with less hard bonuses and more so softer ones. I think Ratatti's example of "DHAV gets blown up from a single PLC shot" is far too extreme. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:00:00 - [21] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:05:00 - [22] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? -Main Pilot's Jobs- Use Large Turret to defend against enemy installations and vehicles Use Large Turret to suppress/assist Small Turret Gunners when fighting infantry Driving and Putting the HAV in advantageous positions Positioning HAV so that Small Gunners can have a good LoS Managing modules to regulate and maintain overall vehicle defenses -Small Gunner's Jobs- Primary means to eliminate small targets such as infantry AV Use Small Turrets to assist Large Turret when fighting vehicles/installations Spotting and feeding situation information to the pilot so s/he can make tactical choices on where to move/position the vehicle. The role of the main pilot is not all that different from a Standard Dropship pilot. They maintain the vehicle, keep it safe, and take it where it needs to go. The existence of the large turret does indeed add a level of direct combat to the Main Pilot's role, but that does not innately mean that combat is specifically to fight infantry. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4593	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:09:00 - [23] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? 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. Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:24:00 - [24] - Quote The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:30:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire? #BurstFireDIENOW But I suppose its fundamentally the same design since lore wise the rounds of the Tri-Barrel Fire within Microseconds of one another to compound the destructive force of the Hybrid Charges. Well you may understand my concern that if the shots come out in a triangle....theoretically, none of them will hit exactly where you were aiming but rather around the area you were aiming. Another thought I'll steal directly from my Trello card for a Gallente Heavy Weapon Quote: Plasma Caster Gallente Plasma Caster: Area Denial Anti Infantry - Full Auto, Fires PLC-like projectiles forward in a cone with bullet drop mechanics. Direct and Splash Damage are low but affects a large area. Ideally shots will leave a lingering 'burn' effect on the ground which causes Damage over Time for enemies that pass over it. Can be used to discourage entry through choke points, and push enemies out of entrenched positions. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 03:26:00 - [26] - Quote hangs head in shame Sorry about derailing, the creative juices start flowing and sometimes its hard to close the valve. tl;dr Speaking from a purely AV side of the Blaster, it needs to have superior DPS compared to other blasters around the 30-40m range, damage should fall off fairly quickly after that point. It needs to be superior DPS to all other turrets at close range. As for how the firing works in relation to AP, we could look at the more 'shotgun' mentality in that fires many many shots at a high fire rate that do very low damage and spread out. It would be continual fire, not a shotgun, but the effect would be similar. Tankers would actually be able to hit a small target without relying on the luck of dispersion, but relative DPS would be lower due to less shots connecting with a smaller hitbox. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:13:00 - [27] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4604	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:22:00 - [28] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: 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. Many Tankers manually fire the missiles alone. I always manually tap the trigger too. The full Auto never seemed to work quite right for me. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4610	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:21:00 - [29] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Why do you not split the turrets, large that is, into 2 types? One with AV functionality and one with AI functionality. This has always perplexed me. Why is this not a viable strategy to balancing tanks. It would seem to me that it would give tanks a place among themselves to be on the battlefield. AI tank pinning you down, pull out the AV turret, or the AV infantry. 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 little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:17:00 - [30] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Why do you not split the turrets, large that is, into 2 types? One with AV functionality and one with AI functionality. This has always perplexed me. Why is this not a viable strategy to balancing tanks. It would seem to me that it would give tanks a place among themselves to be on the battlefield. AI tank pinning you down, pull out the AV turret, or the AV infantry. 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? This, and why would there be a big ass turret for a small ass target? Because bigger turret means bigger boom against smaller target. All kidding aside, it isn't that simple to say that 3 large turrets are better than one plus two smalls. You have to consider many other things other than just pure damage. For one, three HAVs are much more expensive to operate simultaneously as opposed to one HAV and two gunners. Second, three HAVs uses up a larger portion of the team vehicle limit. It is also much easier to maneuver around, engage, and escape with just one HAV as opposed to three. The three HAVs have to stick together to be powerful, and one on its own is weaker than a HAV with two gunners. This now brings me to the point that the small turrets do not have to be AI like the large turret. Two AV small turrets plus the AI large turret should be able to rival a HAV with one AV large turret. Both methods have advantages, but I see the three simultaneous HAVs much more difficult to coordinate. It proved difficult enough back when Uprising was released to have two HAVs spider tanking each other and move around together as a single unit to keep the reps active. Also, going back to my comment on using small turrets with the opposite role of your large turret is more advantageous, as it allows your primary focus to be what your large turret is and through teamwork, you can level the playing field against the other role, unless if your opponent is specialized in that role (3 AV turrets > 1 AV large + 2 AI small) See I disagree on a few of those points, I think 3 HAVs working together are far more capable of routing enemies due to their ability to engage on multiple lines of sight, whereas a single HAV is effectively limited to one. It's far harder for AV to hide behind cover for multiple directions than it is from just one. Even if 2 small gunners have some minor advantages, I just feel like by allowing Large Turrets to be highly effective against infantry, you're not encouraging the 2-3 man tank enough, which I think needs to be essential if you plan to directly engage infantry. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:52:00 - [31] - Quote Ok ok. Let's see if we can find a compromise. The key thing I'm trying to hammer in is 1. Small Turrets will always be better at killing infantry than Large Turrets 2. Large Turrets will always be better at killing vehicles than Small Turrets Going off the principle I outlined before of a gradient scale in a general sense of Most AP centric gradually transitioning into most AV centric. In this example Small Turrets still maintain superiority in terms of AP over Large Turrets, and Large Turrets maintain AV superiority over smalls. However there are two 'sets' of each turret size, one more AV centric and the other more AP centric. In this case the AV Compressed Small Rail would have a similar level of performance compared to the AP Stabilized Large Blaster, in being both equally effective against infantry and vehicles. As you move up or down the scale, things become increasingly more polarized. Most AP Centric (Stabilized Small Blaster) Tight Cone - Higher Fire Rate - Less Damage/Shot (Fragmented Small Missile) Wider Splash Radius - Higher Fire Rate - Less Direct Damage (Cycled Small Rail) Higher Fire Rate - Less Heat Buildup - Lower Damage/Shot [Scattered Small Blaster] Wide Cone - Lower Fire Rate - Higher Damage/Shot [Packed Small Missile] Tighter Splash Radius - Lower Fire Rate - More Direct Damage [Compressed Small Rail] Lower Fire Rate - More Heat Buildup - Higher Damage/Shot (Stabilized Large Blaster) Tight Cone - Higher Fire Rate - Less Damage/Shot (Fragmented Large Missile) Wider Splash Radius - Higher Fire Rate - Less Direct Damage (Cycled Large Rail) Higher Fire Rate - Less Heat Buildup - Lower Damage/Shot [Scattered Large Blaster] Wide Cone - Lower Fire Rate - Higher Damage/Shot [Packed Large Missile] Tighter Splash Radius - Lower Fire Rate - More Direct Damage [Compressed Large Rail] Lower Fire Rate - More Heat Buildup - Higher Damage/Shot Most AV Centric "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4623	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:26:00 - [32] - Quote Heres my general thought process, because I don't think I'm expressing it clearly. Typically the AV community feels "If an HAV can easily kill me, I should be able to easily kill it. A 1 to 1 ratio." And while I don't completely agree, their though process has some merit to it. That being said I don't particularly like the idea that in 1 AV can easily take out my big fat ass, then 2 will completely wreck me....this doesn't sound very fun. Instead if you make it so a Solo tanker struggles to kill infantry by himself, then conversely, the solo infantry AV would also struggle to kill the tanker. By make it more of a requirement for tankers to carry a gunner for the small turret, now it takes 2 people to easily kill infantry (Driver and Gunner) and you can more safely say that it takes 2 AVers to easily kill an HAV. This seems like it would be more enjoyable. Does that make sense? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4624	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:53:00 - [33] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Heres my general thought process, because I don't think I'm expressing it clearly. Typically the AV community feels "If an HAV can easily kill me, I should be able to easily kill it. A 1 to 1 ratio." And while I don't completely agree, their though process has some merit to it. That being said I don't particularly like the idea that in 1 AV can easily take out my big fat ass, then 2 will completely wreck me....this doesn't sound very fun. Instead if you make it so a Solo tanker struggles to kill infantry by himself, then conversely, the solo infantry AV would also struggle to kill the tanker. By make it more of a requirement for tankers to carry a gunner for the small turret, now it takes 2 people to easily kill infantry (Driver and Gunner) and you can more safely say that it takes 2 AVers to easily kill an HAV. This seems like it would be more enjoyable. Does that make sense? Except that Rattati wants to go in the complete opposite direction with UHAVs and DHAVs... How so? UHAVs get bonuses specifically to small turrets to make them designed to fight infantry. DHAVs don't get small turrets and are designed specifically to NOT fight infantry, and instead focus on AV. This is in line with my statement that multiple people are needed to effectively fight against infantry, and solo players are focused specifically on AV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4624	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:54:00 - [34] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Why should an AV focused vehicle be more susceptible to infantry AV than an AI focused vehicle? The UHAV will be a much more considerable threat to infantry, yet it will boast the higher defenses. I think that the proper tradeoff should be that you give up defense for AI. Your best defense against infantry AV should be your offense. An AV focused vehicle can't fight back against infantry AV as efficiently, so it should rely on its defenses to pull out instead. I already tried to discuss this in the other thread but it didn't seem like it caught any attention, so I'll just quickly summarize it here: The DHAV will need an incredible damage bonus to beat the UHAV's defense, otherwise the UHAV will use its better defense to level the playing field against a DHAV. Any combat between DHAVs will result in the very swift annihilation of one them. I fear that DHAVs will be too weak and not fun to use, and UHAVs will be the king of all HAVs. I don't see how making an anti infantry HAV....weak to anti infantry....will make it good at anti infantry. It sounds like you're trying to nerf UHAVs in order to make DHAVs viable, rather than just making DHAVs sufficiently strong to counter them. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4625	Posted - 2015.01.29 05:12:00 - [35] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: ^^^Shouldn't this conversation be in the HAV progression thread? Sorta? It does specifically have to do with how turrets are supposed to operate, and because the HAV are are Turret-centric... "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4628	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:01:00 - [36] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Why should an AV focused vehicle be more susceptible to infantry AV than an AI focused vehicle? The UHAV will be a much more considerable threat to infantry, yet it will boast the higher defenses. I think that the proper tradeoff should be that you give up defense for AI. Your best defense against infantry AV should be your offense. An AV focused vehicle can't fight back against infantry AV as efficiently, so it should rely on its defenses to pull out instead. I already tried to discuss this in the other thread but it didn't seem like it caught any attention, so I'll just quickly summarize it here: The DHAV will need an incredible damage bonus to beat the UHAV's defense, otherwise the UHAV will use its better defense to level the playing field against a DHAV. Any combat between DHAVs will result in the very swift annihilation of one them. I fear that DHAVs will be too weak and not fun to use, and UHAVs will be the king of all HAVs. I don't see how making an anti infantry HAV....weak to anti infantry....will make it good at anti infantry. It sounds like you're trying to nerf UHAVs in order to make DHAVs viable, rather than just making DHAVs sufficiently strong to counter them. Well I didn't quite say that UHAVs needed be nerfed... I think all that needs to change is the DHAV's defenses. I just see no reason why it should have a weaker defense than the UHAV. It already lacks two small turrets and a bonus to fighting infantry. I'd imagine a role bonus of 4% damage per level will put the DHAV nicely into its role, while keeping its defense on par with the UHAV. Now, I want to somehow tie this into the topic of this thread to keep from getting off topic. I find it a bit odd that it would be possible to put a large railgun on a UHAV and a large blaster on a DHAV, assuming your turret assignments on the AI-AV spectrum. While the DHAV could get its bonus as a damage bonus to its large turret to improve its AV capabilities, UHAVs should get a non-damage bonus to large turrets to make fighting against infantry easier. For the large blaster turret, I think keeping its current dispersion will keep it more into an AV role on DHAVs (combined with the damage bonus), while the Gallente UHAV gets a dispersion reduction bonus that will allow it to fight better against infantry, fitting the UHAV's role. And for the large missile launcher, the Caldari UHAV can provide a bonus to splash radius to make it easier to hit infantry. I'm wondering if keeping the current 1.5 meter splash radius will lean it towards the AV role on the DHAV and a 0.5 meter increase to splash radius per level on the Caldari UHAV will lean it more towards fighting infantry. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2596713#post2596713 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4641	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:33:00 - [37] - Quote Let's not get on a Lore/Realism tangent about rocket fuel, it's kinda derailing the topic ^_^ "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4666	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:11:00 - [38] - Quote Killing a tanked LAV is less than a second with a Blaster is just....not good. I want the Blasters to be good, but not a total rapefest. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4666	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:26:00 - [39] - Quote Keep in mind that Breakin's numbers will be adjusted to match whatever the final HP ends up being for the vehicles. The important thing to take away from the sheet is "How do the turrets balance against each other?" The DPS can always be moved up or down to control Tank vs Tank TTK, but whats most important at this stage is how they perform against one another "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4667	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:40:00 - [40] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The-Errorist wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret? the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive. You are avoiding the question and we all know it is excessive. Also right now we have an underpowered 0.975k DPS large blaster, what do you suggest to fix it? "Underpowered" is kinda relative to its strength compared to the other turrets, so its a matter of "Do you buff the blaster? Or nerf the Rail/Missile"? and that really comes down to how long you want the TTK to be. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4696	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:32:00 - [41] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4701	Posted - 2015.02.02 21:56:00 - [42] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. I'm sure we can expect them to be at around 6-10k eHP for a T I HAV, and therefore the turrets shouldn't do more than a thousand DPS per second, otherwise we would have the sort battles that we have now. Thats a pretty fair estimate to use as a benchmark for preliminary design. I guess my point is that we shouldn't waste time discussing exactly how much the DPS should be, as the eHP of the vehicles may be higher or lower than ~10k "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4765	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:27:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:35:00 - [44] - Quote Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. I am seriously interested in what level your blasters are Pokey. Level 5 on Larges, I think smalls are at 3. I'd note that a decrease in fire rate would have to be paired with a decrease in dispersion. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4782	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:44:00 - [45] - Quote Devadander wrote: Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash. Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4828	Posted - 2015.02.08 04:55:00 - [46] - Quote Devadander wrote: I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP) If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls. Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes? Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean. TL;DR I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing. Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry. Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion. Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium. Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4846	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:44:00 - [47] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: stuff 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4849	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:30:00 - [48] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff 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. Or don't use a basic blaster fit. To be fair, different tiered blasters should simply do more or less damage than each other, and specific tiers should not functionally work differently because their damage is too low compared to the shield threshold. It would be similar if a STD Plasma Rifle didn't stop enemy Shield recharge but an ADV did, the disadvantage between tiers should simply be damage, not functionality. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

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.