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)
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:34:00 - [1] - Quote 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:39:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Alright I looked at your initial there. My first thought is that, unless you intend for EHP capacity to be based off the current Gunnlogi these turrets for AV will cause nosebleedingly short fights. 2000 DPS is mind-numbingly short duration. Currently the only turret that breaks 1000 DPS by any significant margin is the missile turret. For basic purposes, until you have the hulls locked down, that you make turret DPS step up rather than have one sub-1000 DPS cannon then two above 2000. Right now, without finalized hull average EHP I can only base these numbers off what we have now. My assesment In the aforementioned vacuum is that I think missiles need their rate of fire dropped and their velocity stepped up. There really should be no need for a fragmented version with a low splash damage hit with a moderate radius to represent collateral damage from a large shaped charge. In today's climate I'd recommend high alpha for rails around 1750 alpha and an overall base DPS of 700-750, a bit ahead of handheld AV. I would recommend setying missiles to a base 800-850 which would require a more sustained fire pattern than instablap barrage. And I would recommend setting blasblastersres to 900-950 DPS and tweak upward based on your finalized hulls. It will be easier to step the weapons up or down as needed en masse if we set up a baseline Rather than having to play guessing games with each one. If we start here, then it's easier to balance them so they can be used on infantry without being overpowering or needing special modules to tighten the dispersion. My two cents. Hope it helps. I believe missile burst dps is effectively 3600 and blaster havs need to get into short range. If the consensus is to reduce DPS overall, then we first get the dps/range curve right, and then reduce all dps. Make it rock papers and scissors. Railguns- AV Missiles- AV/Infantry depending on fragmented or not Blasters- AI turrret that does roughly 600 DPS to Infantry up to 50m with pin point accuracy minus the magnetic bullet effect we used to have - Clip of 40 Introduce the Scattered blaster that has High DPS with a little bit lower Dispersion than now and have 100 in a clip. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:43:00 - [3] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Whatever is AP/AI get's nerfed to sh*t 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:54:00 - [4] - Quote Rattati- Don't reduce missiles ammo- it is unnecessary nerf and no need for it. Also the Blaster should fire slower but do more damage per shot. When I think of Tank Large Cannons, I think of slow firing high damage type of round. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdL1SvuR1EA Watch Level caps turret. (the main one) That is what the large blaster should be like. The small blaster better suits high RPM like a mini gun. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:18:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Whatever is AP/AI get's nerfed to sh*t 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? 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1601	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:55:00 - [6] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1601	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:42:00 - [7] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: 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. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun I wish blasters were like pre 1.7.. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1610	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:55:00 - [8] - Quote 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. Do you ever ask yourself why? Why does a Large Turret have to be AV, why does small turret have to be AI? Why? It's like saying the SMG is suppose to be AI and CR suppose to be AV? Small Blaster is just a smaller version of Large Blaster. If it was to be AV, I rather have a gallantean Plasma Cannon like Turret that has charge up and bullet drop ECT. If there was a Large Projectile Turret (Minmatar) and it was a huge version of a Combat Rifle, I would expect it to have pretty much the same role, kill infantry. It's a blaster turret. It's a auto-cannon, it works like an auto-cannon, it should preform like an auto-cannon. No way in hell is a Blaster Turret suppose to be AV. When the game first came out, CCP Blam! intended that thing to be AP because it had terrible AV capabilities. Railgun was AV because it obviously had no business killing Infantry. Missiles were middle ground. P.S. What the fk is the point of a Large Turret if you can't kill infantry with it? It's not like they are useful breaking down walls like in BF4. There is no point in driving a tank if you cannot even kill infantry. If you see a tank, you might aswell just continue being infantry because it's not like they are getting 20+ kills a match like me in a Militia Heavy and HMG. 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1611	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:00:00 - [9] - Quote 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1612	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:43:00 - [10] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. What is the point of the Driver? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1612	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:06:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? Driving and Shooting stuff. shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1612	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:33:00 - [12] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1616	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:19:00 - [13] - 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. Many Tankers manually fire the missiles alone. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1628	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:33:00 - [14] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Blasters aren't the worst AV right now.. I rather them being more like large turrets than preforming like souped up versions of infantry weapons. The Blaster should be a slow firing heavy hitting weapon with the clip of about 75. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Copyright © 2013-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20241218/0158
EVE-Online™/DUST514™ and EVE/DUST514 imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.