|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
924
   |
Posted - 2015.01.26 08:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Dear players,
We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose.
[...]
Please discuss.
I'm going to discuss the AV turret's primary purpose, if I may.
I kind of like the model of "rail is AV, missile hybrid and blaster AI" that we used to have since Dust's inception. This ties HAVs into the escalation of a match nicely. Deploy blaster to suppress or kill infantry, use rail to scare off blaster. Deploy missile if you don't want to commit.
I assume your comment towards fragmented missile launchers hints at an attempt to make variants of turrets for AV and AI purposes. Please skip the next paragraph if I'm wrong in that assertion. In the meantime I'd like to comment that, if this disparity is too strong, this is rather unintuitive design. As a vehicle player I can see from 300 meters out whether the HAV I'm attacking has a blaster, missile or rail turret and can thus conclude its purpose. If there are AV and AI variants of the turrets that actually change the purpose of what the turrets do then I won't know until A) it has started shooting at me or B) it pops up on the killfeed and I'm lucky enough that no two HAVs with the same turret type are on the field. Neither of these sound like fun. And it has the potential to get worse from the perspective of infantry.
Thus I'd like to suggest to keep the designed roles of the turrets like they used to be. But please go ahead and make variants of the turrets that make them slightly lean towards the AV or AI function within their design space. Much like before the old variants were removed. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
924
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet There's an issue with rail turret overheat.
The current one overheats after 4 rounds, your spreadsheet has that as 7.
Not being an expert here, but total heat produced is probably something like (HeatPerSecond * FireInterval + HeatPerShot) * Number of shots fired. That would put a current railgun at 100.8 heat after 4 shots, which is where it currently overheats (4*1.4*8+4*14 = 100.8).
As per your proposal that would put the new railgun at 2.5 shots to overheat, thus 3 rounds. Where we had 6784 hp damage until overheat we would now be at 5655 hp after the third shot. |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
925
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 11:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:HAV vs HAV TTK are fine imho, i would like to keep the TTK short if one tank manage to ambush the other, i've also managed to destroy more than 1 HAV in a short time when i ambushed them. I tend to agree. I have very limited HAV experience yet it is clear to me that when a MLT fit Sica has over 7k ehp against rails that TTK is not much of an issue. Just yesterday I had two fights that each lasted for several minutes with each participant waiting to catch the other sufficiently off-guard to deliver the finishing blow. If TTK goes up by much it will be difficult to kill any HAV unless you team up on it. Just the powercreep from the introduction of UHAVs will likely put a upper limit to how much HAV-TTK can be increased.
I guess today the problem is mostly the large missile turret. I'd love to see it return to its pre-1.7 form of 4-missile salvos at least on a conceptual level (peak DPS being almost identical to sustained DPS).
|
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
927
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 16:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
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". |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
928
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 17:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:This is PURE brainstorming guys. I think the "peak DPS near sustained DPS" design space is completely unoccupied right now.
Basically give it 4 in the mag for a ~1200 hp volley and a ~1.5 sec reload. Arrives at 800 DPS until ammo runs out. If you're going to accept delayed damage application, why not specialize in prolonged engagements? |
Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
966
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 15:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote: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 If anti infantry: ROF as implemented currently.
If anti vehicle: APC style. |
|
|
| |
|