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)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1250	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:07:00 - [1] - 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. Been reading through some of the discussions going on, and I will say you have most certainly got my attention. Though I'm a bit confused. Why are you maintaining the old idea of what these various turrets are and their roles in the field. I do understand that for a long time now you have been pushing this idea that large turrets are meant only for AV purposes, and equipping smalls is theoretically supposed to fill that gap at the cost of additional infantry on the field. It does make some amount of sense, but from my experience, in practice it never really panned out. What has changed?? I've always wondered why you don't split functionality among large turrets, as it would seem easier to focus on one rather than attempting the complex idea you are trying (and have been) so desperately to accomplish. 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. I mean I do see the issue that those tank would be too powerful against ground AV. But that in itself is very easy to address. Drastically increasing PG/CPU usage on an AI tank turret, would limit "tank" options. Conversely decreasing PG/CPU usage for AV turrets would allow for higher tank ability, moving infantry AV to more of a support against them and not the end to them. Given an AV turret really shouldn't be killing infantry in the first place, this shouldn't be much concern to infantry. An issue I see would be small turrets, but perhaps you could limit them for an AV tank in some way. Sorry, I know I'm not addressing what you are saying, but as a tanker from the old days, this has been tried for so long that I just don't see it as the best direction to take. I don't really like the idea of a blaster being good against other tanks, yet having AI functionality. Missiles to me will still simply go back to underperforming, and rails simply become hill snipers. BTW, agreed rails shouldn't be the end all in the face of other turrets, but with range being so much greater than blasters and more precise than missiles, this will NEVER change. And as far as missiles, either go with several short bursts or back to the single fire. Ever have I hated that full auto crap. Anyways, keep up the good work, I hope you get it right. Tank love is long overdue. Just keep in mind that you actually address the root of these issues and not what outwardly appears to be the problem. As a tanker, I've taken quite the break here and don't intend to come back until changes come about, but I do look forward to positive things for my role. In the meantime, I'll keep on with ol destiny but I'm still with Dust at heart. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1251	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:38:00 - [2] - Quote 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? Why would it make sense to run 3 solo tanks over one with 2 smalls? I don't think your assumption is entirely true that 3 AP large over shadow 1 large ap with 2 small aps. I've never seen the small turrets as "Pilots turrets" as you claim them to be. They are there for the ground pounders to use to supplement the tanks in taking a position or killing the enemy. All honesty, if there are 3 pilots, why in the world would they not just simply call 3 separate tanks in to begin with!? You certainly confuse me with that statement. While given, 3 pilots can man a single tank, what benefit does this give you. Forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm currently on a dust 514 vacation. But as far as I know, tanking hasn't changed much at all, if any. Now to answer your question, why wouldn't you use 2 smalls if you have the PG/CPU to do so?? It would help supplement your tank, and give a place for the infantry to hide, assault, and take a position. My question, why do you assume that a large AP turret would be > a small AP turret? What if a large AP was more or less on par with a small AP turret. The point I'm trying to get across, tanks need to play a more diverse role on the field else they will ever be stagnant as they are. By giving the DRIVER the ability to determine what that role is you dramatically increase the amount of tank interaction on the field. Let's just throw out some scenarios: AP large turret vs Infantry, Tank has decent ability to kill infantry nearly as well as a small will, infantry is mostly helpless against it as it is unfazed by conventional firearms. AP large turret plus 2 smalls vs Infantry, A very dangerous set up as now you have 3 deadly turrets to kill with. AP large turret vs AV infantry or AV tanks, against the infantry, the tank is more or less an even match. If the infantry plays his cards right, using high cover, light vehicle, ect, he can easily overcome the tank. With the increased CPU/PG required for tracking and firing protocols associated with hitting small targets, the tank will sacrifice sorely needed durability against AV of all forms. This is how I see match ups going down. AV tank Greater than AI tank AV tank Greater than Infantry AV AV tank ineffective against conventional infantry AI tank greater than Infantry AI tank equal to AV infantry AI tank less than AV tank Given we may need to address the issue of an AV tank using small turrets to overcome their lack of AI abilities. But I'm sure there are solutions for that as well. The main thing with AI Large turrets is that they need to be more on par with infantry. Much shorter ranges, less damage output, slower tracking, ect. I mean simply addressing the issue of range, really gives the infantry AV a superb advantage over an AI tank. But my whole idea gives tanks a purpose among themselves on the field. I imagine PC match ups would run an AI tank for each side, with 2 AV tanks protecting it. AI tank pushes objectives, AV tanks provides cover against other tanks. Both sides run AV infantry that deal with AI tanks rather well. I mean I see a lot of potential in this in really improving tank play. I mean all everything was previously was tank slaughters infantry and holds ground against other tank. What I propose is tank slaughters infantry but can't hold ground against an AV tank nor can it withstand much from the infantry AV. But with the lack of infantry AV or AV tank support, the AI tank is left unchecked to rampage. But more than likely it will have some sort of disadvantage when going into the field, where as all tanks previously that did this did not. That my friend has always been the problem with them. You get basically a suit that is immune to all conventional infantry to infantry play weapons. There was never any considerable disadvantage to them. Yet stripping them of the AI in regards to large turrets (as ALWAYS having 2 extras with you isn't nearly as feasible in practice in my opinion for the overall win) removes the need for an AV tank. And to Godin THEkiller, why not? This is the future is it not! Btw, If you seriously want to openly discuss this more, and I'm def open to it, it might be best to move it to another posting as this might be a bit more off topic of what the dev intends. I honestly don't see the current direction as some overall fix to the situation, but if you have points to the contrary, I would be very much interested to hear them. I do miss typing about dust. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1251	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:57:00 - [3] - Quote Btw Rattati, I very much love this community and how you interact with the community. You my friend, are what saved Dust! I spend a lot of time with the destiny forums, but never actually do anything other than read postings. As the only thing that will be read is what's "trending" and even then it seems to me that the voice is mostly not listened to. You have done a wonderful job buddy, and sorry I kinda called you out that one time back when you were just a player working in the finance field or whatever it was you did! It certainly wasn't your place and if you had been here all along, dust would have been MUCH further along. I hope they pay you well for all of this!!! Sorry off topic since I haven't been spending a lot of time here, I figure I should give you this shout out. I really love how you have progressed this game! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1251	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:23:00 - [4] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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 So the jist of what you are saying is that a large turret shouldn't outperform a small turret in the AI department but neither should a Small turret over shadow a large turret. What problems do you see with a large turret that is on par with a small turret in regards to AP? The way I see it, the small turrets should be there to supplement the role of the large turret, not simply determine it. My issue is that if a lone tanker can't effectively deal with infantry, then you lessen the need for an AV turret, even in the presence of smalls that are supposed to fill the gap. Thing is, tankers are not going to ALWAYS run gunners. I've play lone wolf in pubs and I ALWAYS have smalls on. From what I have found is that most infantry are uninterested in using them, and those that do don't tip the balance enough in my favor to actually make me a discernible threat on the field requiring the need for AV tanks (and even if there is one out, I hold a significant advantage over it anyways). Let me just ask you this, what is it that you view is wrong with tanks? For me, I see them as not having a discernable role given to them to require the need for tank on tank interactions. Back when the tank changes hit that made them OP, I took it upon myself to run the AV portion. I skipped over infantry, rarely caring for them in the least, and focused on all of those tanks on the field gunning down infantry. With me on the field, I was able to completely turn the tide of battles single handly. But best of all, I had a lot of reason to pull out my tank, and plenty of other tanks to shoot. Since they have toned down the blaster though, that fun evaporated. No longer could I go out with the intent of going purely AV as many times there weren't any to be found, and those that were there, really served no purpose to the outcome to a match. Us tankers might as well have our own game mode, as we really weren't needed in matchups. I was forced to play ADS as PC matchups no longer really need tankers, as they didn't hold the advantage that a forge gun couldn't fill. And if needed the forger could go HMG and actually make an impact on the outcome of a battle if need be. Where tanks were just there for mostly nostalgic reasons. And I mention PC because the very nature of the PUB is unbalanced to begin with, and there will always be someone at a disadvantage, which is not always the result of a particular thing being unbalanced but due to the lack of a team not having roles balanced out. So I ask, Why do you think that tanks need changes in the first place? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1253	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:19:00 - [5] - Quote Turrets and Tanks There is talk of changing up turrets as some are overperforming, others underperforming, and some confused on what they want to be. What ever shall we do! Well for starters let's look at rails. Rails Overperforming much? Maybe just a little or maybe it just seems that way. Rails can fill the role of anti AV (at most any range) with limited AI functionality. They are in my opinion very versatile and definitely a favorite of mine. But let's ask why, and how this makes them a possible over performer. Range - It's the ultimate ranged weapon. It's a sniper mounted to a TANK. This is something I feel doesn't get enough attention, and unless it does, it will forever hold it's glory or be nerfed into oblivion. The problem with rails atm as is seen by Rattati, is that it's too good in close range. To that I say DUHHH. The issue here is that you have not focused on what is it's greatest strength! Not addressing that range is the issue will lead you to further increasing the heat cost, reducing the number of shots, thereby making it an extremely long process to drop anything. Meaning brawling with a blaster or missile will most certainly mean short and swift death. But I feel that not only hurts it in CQC, but also at range. What good is this AV weapon if I can't kill something unless I get a full 20 seconds to beat on it. A lot happens in this time and forever will kills slip away from a railer. A good thing, yes. But what if I want to actually kill something and not just be a support AV weapon. As range increases, you need to increase the time it takes to make a kill. Conversely, as you decrease range, decrease the TTK. I would rather see this done with Damage per shot, than I would heat cost, but best of all, I want it seen doing both with different turrets. A rail at a range 400 M, making small, but consistent damage, or a rail doing large damage but over longer period of time then we have now. So I'm saying yes it's a good idea to increase heat cost, but not a favorite of mine as you will just make rail tanks redline snipers without giving them what THEY NEED. An option to brawl that is. Options are limitless here. Brawler rails: Moderate damage, high ROF, low heat cost. Consider adjusting ammo for additional balancing options. High damage, low ROF, moderate heat cost. Consider ammo per clip for additional balancing options. Long range rails: Low damage, High ROF, lower heat cost. Higher than normal ammo per clip. High damage, low ROF, High heat cost. Lowest ammo per clip. Honestly, turret variety is sorely needed and missed, and I think will help you along with balancing tanks as a whole. Too much is trying to be done with too little, in my opinion of course. Blasters Some would say these are the underperformers. Wholly disagree. They work really good against shield tanks! The issue here is range, AGAIN. But something else needs to be considered along with it, AI functionality. While I can get kills with a rail, a blaster has much more potential in making the kills. I say potential because I'm not the greatest killing infantry. Just not my thing, but something I'm working on improving in the future. I have seen people slaughter infantry with them, even in their current state. And over a rail, at the very least I can damage infantry far more effectively than I can with a rail. So considering the AI functionality, I would say no, they ARE NOT UNDER PERFORMING. If you want a blaster to perform well against other armor, then they should lose much of this functionality, much like you did with rails and splash damage. There is talk of using an active modules to increase AI functionality, by reducing dispersion. So if they are to kill infantry, much easier than they do now, why in the world do you want them performing in the AV department as well. Not to mention that a module decreasing dispersion not only helps against infantry BUT OTHER VEHICLES AS WELL. Thing is, we had blaster that not only killed infantry but other tanks with ease. It made blasters king and severely skewed usage for many top players to use only those due to the immense diversity they offered. I say focus on one or the other. But not to say that you can't go with a module to improve AI ability. But it would again be best to offer diversity in turrets (I know this my not mesh with the grand master plan Rattati has but maybe it can give some ideas). Just an example of how this could work. AP Low damage, high RoF, built in active dispersion module - Increase TTK against infantry but make it very possible make the kill. AV Higher damage, low RoF, lots of dispersion, no module - Hits harder, but nearly impossible to make a kill against infantry, good against other tanks. Dispersion makes it hard to hit another tank at optimal, might need to be addressed in some way. I'll add more in the future but that is it for now. I would very much like to see some diversity though come to turret types. Don't know if that is even in the game plan but I feel it really should be if you actually want to balance out and emphasize the differences between them. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1253	Posted - 2015.01.31 18:08:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: 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. Blasters are extremely situational and borderline useless on gallente hulls. The caldari hulls can easily fit any turret but they still perform overall better at all ranges in all situations except in the case of a few niche players who enjoy being the underdog. Borderline useless on gallente hulls?? WAAAHH I find this VERY short sighted. While I agree that due to fitting abilities, a gunnlogi is often superior, but only due to the fact that they can easily use small turrets and duel tank. IF ANYTHING, that is what needs to be addressed first and foremost. Naming the blaster as the reason the maddie underperforms is just dead wrong. I've read a bit of what people have been saying and truly I feel you are way off base here. For one, a blaster will shred a shield tank. And match up a shield blaster to an armor blaster, armor should win hands down. Not to mention the fact the blaster holds superior AI abilities. Let me mention some reasons for this from my immense experience using tanks. Armor takes less damage per shot from blaster fire than a shield that receives more. While slow to turn, an armor tank has superior top speed. Using a nitro, you can easily negate range advantages of other turrets and tank types. Rail of course being more difficult, but the range advantage should be kept in mind when engaging one. Armor tends to have a much higher eHP over a shield tank, not to mention much more turret depression. While I say yes the gunnlogi is most certainly superior at the moment, this is NOT DUE TO TURRET BALANCE BUT HULL BALANCE. And another thing that you fail to recognize is the fact that it's superior in it's AI capabilities over other turret types. This fact alone lends no credence to the idea that a blaster should be superior in the AV department at close range. Blasters had the best of both worlds, and I thought we established a LONG time ago that this is counterproductive to balancing tanks. Things that would need to be addressed for armor are as follows: Total CPU is too low. I have maxed proficiency skills for most everything, and still struggle to just fit a full proto maddie (ie can't do it). CPU is the major limiting factor. PG/CPU comparison on modules between shield and armor, seem way off. Armor modules need adjustments to fall more in line with shield counterparts. Engineering modules need to be looked at. They take low slot space, and are crucial to a shield tank that wants to fit for high shield defense. Conversely, on an armor tank, low slot space is your defense space. Meaning you will never match a gunnlogi in fitting capacity if this is to remain as it is. Addressing these issues would give the maddie more overall options for fitting a decent defense while maintaining offensive capabilities using small turrets or just all proto modules for their armor slots. Why they can't already do this is just insane to me. Anyways fellas, try to keep this in mind when you go about talking about where the root of a problem lay. Many are looking in what I feel is the wrong direction, and by doing that you are just going to hurt tanks more as a whole. I actually prefer using a blaster madrudger over my shielded one. A blaster madrudger is far superior in the AI department, and stands up very well against a shield blaster. Now if I could fit it like I fit my gunnlogi, with double pro extenders and a pro hardener, the thing would be unstoppable to any shield tank on the field. Even those with a railgun would have to think twice attempting to brawl with one. (Also, something that HAS to be consider is how most all forms of AV gain damage bonuses to armor. Without shield varieties of AV, a maddie will always falter to the superior infantry AV defense that is shields.) Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1253	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:17:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The point. You missed it. I'm not a tanker. I'm helping get them fixed. So get off your high horse. The blaster isn't the cause, it just doesn't improve the armor tanks in any way In fact currently the blaster is outclassed in all ways at all ranges by rails and missiles. But I'm sure you skipped to the end and ignored all the discussion along the way in your eagerness to correct me with your wall of not-helping the topic text. I still find your current statement wrong. As a tanker I can tell you it just isn't true. And no high horse here fella, you clearly took it wrong. But I will say that not being a tanker yourself, you will find it hard to believe me when I say blasters are not "outclassed" as you make it out to be. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1255	Posted - 2015.01.31 21:27:00 - [8] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Blasters mess shields up fast. Unless they get two hardeners on before you get the first shot. The only chance you have is that a blue hits them with something to break their regen. 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1256	Posted - 2015.02.01 18:11:00 - [9] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And a rail or missile can't break a Maddy in 30 seconds? closer to 3 My point. ?? Can you please elaborate so I understand your point a bit better? You go about mentioning a maddie, while additionally speaking of turret types. Why is it that you assume it's the blaster as cause for the problems, and not the madrudger hull itself? What do you see happening if we address supposed problems with the hull itself AND the blaster. Or what is to happen if we simply address blasters as the root of the problem and go from there? If blasters are not the cause of much of the disparity between the two tanks, you will have fixed nothing. If you go about "fixing" both, you run a serious risk of simply shifting the power from one to the other. Something that has been done OVER AND OVER. If a blaster can't break a double hardened gunnlogi's regen (which I have a hard time believing and will be testing this in the field later), then I don't see the problem inherent in the blaster itself, but the gunnlogi being a bit over the top. My point in all this is before you go about addressing turrets, you must address the hulls they are attached to first and foremost. This will have a bigger impact overall and to me is the root of much of the problems. And it also must be noted that the blaster is a very effective AI and AI support weapon, I would say more so than the other two turret types. Let me just take a moment and compare my blaster fittings between my armor and shields. Gunnlogi High: 2x complex shield extender ---- 1x complex shield hardener Low: 1x Pg enhancer ----- 1x CPU enhancer Turrets : Large Pro blaster ---- 2 pro small rails Madrudger High: 1x nitro Low: 1x armor hardener ----- 1x complex plate ---- 1x enchanted repper OR 1x basic plate --- 1x complex plate ---- 1x enhanced repper Turret: Large Pro blaster Now tell me, is it truly the blaster that should give most cause for concern? This is with maxed proficiency skills in everything that I have equipped. Now just to assume a situation I have been in with my maddie: Madrudger VS one rail gunnlogi and one blaster gunnlogi - Result, madrudger lost. What happened here you ask. I tried to take on two tanks at once that's what! I was using my double plated fit for this one. Engagement happened at the entrance to a city. Blaster was in the rear position, rail had just moved out of the gates and into the forward position. I move up on the rail, as it was the largest threat to my armor, and engage. Unfortunately I couldn't break LOS on the blaster but I did manage to drop the rail to a sliver of armor health before I went down. Though had the additional tank not have been there things would have gone rather predictably. The rail would have lost hands down. He had dropped three rounds in me, managed a fourth while avoiding overheat, but by this point he was nearly dead, with no other options but to attempt a retreat but more than likely simply die to my blaster fire. While myself would have been able to at least sustain the last shot that would put it into overheat. I assumed by the time that it took to drop it's shields, it was running extenders with a single hardener. Then again it could have been double hardened as I got the jump on it and had health down to half before it could react with it's hardener. Thing is, I didn't even use my full advantages, given the position of the other tank. Turret tracking. Generally when I go about engaging a rail with a blaster, whether I'm in my shield tank or not, I move to negate their range advantage first and foremost. Once in close, it's very easy to outrack that ever so slow turret, avoiding fire from it and giving you the time to apply needed DPS. I very much like doing this with a madrudger as they do have some very nice top speed, made noticeable with a nitro. By watching the turret position, I can angle my approach so that the rail will have a very hard time keeping up with me. While I don't have any problems tracking him at that high speed. Yes I don't always make it but the outcome is often very close. 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:01:00 - [10] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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'm just going to skip the above ** as it's unnecessary that makes no sense. First off, I can say that most people here has said several times that Large turrets shouldn't be MADE to be AI as it's primary function, and rather Anti big **. Blasters are currently the opposite, which is why people wants it to be changed. Futhermore, you say that YOU think that blasters are good at AV, yet both the opinions of several people here as well as the math behind these changes says otherwise. You're quite literally using the argument of "I think it's fine, therefore it shouldn't change" when several others says otherwise. You might have a argument if say everyone who said otherwise didn't even pilot or know the ins and outs of piloting, but no, most here is either a pilot as a main, or has a pilot alt. Lastly, saying that "Rails will be forever be better AV than blasters" is silly. Why should they? I don't think you get the point of this thread. 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:16:00 - [11] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:49:00 - [12] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? 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. I did not imply either, you did. I asked what I asked. Why should a HAV be based around killing infantry, then other HAV's based around killing said HAV's? It would just lead to HAV's killing HAV's just to kill HAV's; there's no point in it. Infantry HAS a goal: hack everything, and kill whatever tries to take such things. Vehicles in general have nothing of the sort. 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.02 00:03:00 - [13] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That is only valid on flat surfaces with no cover AT ALL. That simply doesn't exist. On top of that, Rail alpha will be high, but DPS low, so missing (which is a thing) will hurt it. It's not superior in every circumstance, which is what I've been asking for, including hulls and pretty much everything else in the game. 2: Seeing as it makes little to no ******* sense that a large turret be made to shoot at tiny targets, I reject that. I'm pretty sure many others does as well. Not only does it not make a lick of logical sense, it devalues Gallente's main weapon of choice for a AV platform, it devalues small turrets on said HAV's, and it makes it to where it's harder for anything to counter shield tanked HAV's. 3: It's good that you have your own opinion. That means that you're an independent person at least on a concussions level. That doesn't mean that your opinion is a valid one. Say for example you think feminism is great. I would say that you're an idiot, and egalitarian is the correct way to go. 4: A rail with range on a blaster is only valid if that Rail can keep range on said blaster. As soon as it loses that advantage, game over, which is why it isn't "superior". It should never always falter, the skill of the pilot should determine that. 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.02 01:45:00 - [14] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing the large rails have a penalty to the hulls movement speed when charging up, similar to breach forge but not as drastic, would be a huge buff to blasters and Missle at short range and cut back on rail melee tanks or the nitro back and forth back and forth garbage rail tanks. Depends on the ehp of the hulls though, I have a feeling there is going to be alot of armor repping in the tank update. Turret tracking is a good start as well. At max range it doesn't take much turret turning to keep a target in your sights yet up close it makes a very noticeable difference. Perhaps that might be a good alternative as well if you want to emphasize more that it's meant for range and not close range engagements. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.02 01:55:00 - [15] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That is only valid on flat surfaces with no cover AT ALL. That simply doesn't exist. On top of that, Rail alpha will be high, but DPS low, so missing (which is a thing) will hurt it. It's not superior in every circumstance, which is what I've been asking for, including hulls and pretty much everything else in the game. 2: Seeing as it makes little to no ******* sense that a large turret be made to shoot at tiny targets, I reject that. I'm pretty sure many others does as well. Not only does it not make a lick of logical sense, it devalues Gallente's main weapon of choice for a AV platform, it devalues small turrets on said HAV's, and it makes it to where it's harder for anything to counter shield tanked HAV's. 3: It's good that you have your own opinion. That means that you're an independent person at least on a concussions level. That doesn't mean that your opinion is a valid one. Say for example you think feminism is great. I would say that you're an idiot, and egalitarian is the correct way to go. 4: A rail with range on a blaster is only valid if that Rail can keep range on said blaster. As soon as it loses that advantage, game over, which is why it isn't "superior". It should never always falter, the skill of the pilot should determine that. 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. 1: A Blaster can make use of cover much more vs. a rail can. cover won't save ou in a blaster's optimal the vast majority of the time. The opposite is not the case. So yes, it is in fact true. What are you getting at exactly? A rail with a flat surface to target the blaster from will have an advantage by design, and a rail that doesn't have a clear shot due to cover will give the advantage to blasters b design, giving the advantage to blasters. Balancing blasters to be better than rails in short ranges while the rail being better at long ranges in this case logically makes sense? Do you not like things to make sense? 2: Yup, confirmed that you don't like things to make sense. I'm done here then. 1: I'm sorry, it DOES work to both sides advantage if one or the other can break LOS and allow for brief bursts of healing and cooldowns. I do it all the time, and in fact use that cover to gain more range and stay out of a blaster optimal. It does work both ways. And your statement that rails only work on flat ground with no cover is just a little bit unreal. In practice this is TOTALLY untrue. 2: Look, if you want to be "real" about this, it wouldn't take more than one well placed shot to drop a tank. Much like in the real world. If you want to be "real" about this, I should squish people just by moving over them. If you want to be "real" about this, a railgun should cause considerable splash damage. If you want to be "real" about this, missiles should cause huge explosions full of shrapnel that slaughters infantry. If you want to be "real" about this, a large blaster would not only kill infantry but penetrate buildings and walls and cover. Causing considerable damage not just to Vehicles but infantry as well. Harder to hit infantry (much like it is) but causing something like a one shot kill None of this is true. So apparently we sacrifice some aspects of realism for the sake of balance. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.02 18:40:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. True, let's take a look back to your original OP. CCP Rattati wrote: Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close Railgun, too good at everything What I assume you mean by this is that it's too good up close and at range. Making it the turret people gravitate to for making vehicle kills. It also has some limited AI functionality, able to make kills on infantry with careful tracking, or if they stand still long enough to get that red dot to light up. In an average game, I might make 10 rail kills on infantry. Is this acceptable? In any case let's focus on AV functionality. First we must identify what we want. I think the most obvious aspect we want to eliminate is how effective it is in close quarters combat against another tank. Addressing this, the statement that a blaster is not good enough at close ranges becomes less true against a rail. I really don't like the idea of further lowing DPS potential as I feel rails are in a decent spot damage wise. Lowering DPS potential further though heat cost specifically. This would not only eliminate CQC abilities, but also severely limit ranged abilities. What I'm saying here that type of nerf would hurt the turret all around, moving it out of the spotlight completely. What I feel will have a lesser effect at range but a far greater effect in CQC is lowering the turning speed of the turret, IE turret tracking. Let's get out of the box and start identifying other potential aspects of turrets aside from the most obvious, DPS, that can have considerable impacts on their abilities in certain situations. Also note that making turrets turn independently of the hull itself can have a huge impact on the disparity between a maddie with a rail and a gunnlogi with a rail. The turning ability of a gunnlogi benefits turning of their turrets to a very large degree over the madrudger. Blaster is not good enough at close Again, let's identify what we want. We want blasters to shine in a CQC environment. A rail should be at a disadvantage within a blasters optimal. Again though I don't see straight DPS as the best way to do this. If any changes to DPS are to be made, they should be small, as blasters are not that underpowered as many would make them out to be. Again I will say though that the range is the most inhibiting aspect of the turret. No matter what you do, it will always falter to any long range counterpart, if the range disadvantage is used to the others advantage. A couple of things to note here. Limited range forces them into unfavorable positions, not only with another rail, but with AV on the field that trumps it's own range. Where a rail can maintain distance from the tank AND AV on the field. It will always have better AI support abilities over other types, and this should be seriously considered for why it's lesser against other AV turrets. What I mean is it should be kept this way, as moving it more to AV will still result in it underperforming against another rail. As I mentioned at the beginning, one change to turret tracking could nip this in the butt. But it still won't be the top dawg people want it to be or expect it to be, regardless of what you do because of the way range affects tank dynamics. Even when blasters were king, before 1.6 that is, the best way to deal with one was with a rail, if you intended not to risk your tank. So unless you move the rail to a "support role" a blaster will ever falter to it. Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Let's identify what we want, yet again. Burst DPS is far too high and needs to be lowered in some way. Missiles can unload their entire salvo in just a few seconds. By doing so, they can easily apply a large amount of DPS in a very short time compared to other turrets. To the point that they can destroy any tank not stacked with defense in just a few seconds. Agreed that by removing the "auto fire" function is a good start. Give missiles the ability to only fire so many rockets at a time, thereby decreasing the DPS potential to fall more in line with other turrets. I would prefer see this done with something like 3 round bursts, a slight decrease to overall damage, and an increase to clip size to compensate. That or reduce reload speed, over clip size. One thing to note though when you go about saying missile DPS is too high. This is only true against armor. My shield stacked gunnlogi laughs off missile salvos. By decreasing DPS potential, you also make it impossible for missiles to affect shields in any reasonable way. This would need to be addressed, otherwise missiles will remain as they do now, novelties at best. TL;DR Decreasing turret tracking for rails will help address the main disparity between blasters and rails. That rails can outperform or are on even ground with a blaster in CQC. This will have limited impact at range but very noticeable impacts when trying to use them in a close quarter environment. RoF change to missiles is a good start, but addressing the damage differences between armor and shields must be done. Maybe change the damage profile to do more damage against shields then current. 85/105 or something like that maybe. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.04 18:46:00 - [17] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo The railgun already generates more than enough heat per round. If the trigger is held down, how many rounds can be fired? That's what I thought. Why I suggest addressing turret rotation speed to reduce CQC effectiveness as I think that's the over goal of increasing heat. Maybe even reduce clip size to 7. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1260	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:42:00 - [18] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. If you don't like what I have to say, then just block me on here, problem solved. You're essentially covering your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you." You are nitpicking at posts from page two while the discussion has moved to page eighteen. This is no longer relevant or meaningful discussion, I will not engage in non-discussions with you thus all I have to say is go away. I have provided adequate support for my position, I see tanks play peekaboo from the redline with proto rail turrets on a daily basis as does practically everyone else who actually plays this game, stomping your feet and denying a fact doesn't make it not a fact. Let me repeat: I will not engage in non-discussion with you, I do not engage with people who deny things that are facts, I will not speak with you as long as you continue to be immature and non-constructive. Here's a handy guide for you Not to agree with one or the other, peekabo is more or less a thing of the past. Sure you have some tanks hiding in the redline, but it's very map dependent whether this will work or not. I honestly do see this as much of a problem as you yourself do as I don't see it often myself. Most tanks come out or just sit there the whole match not bothering anyone. I mean if you really have a hard on for a tank hiding in the redline afraid to come out, go in there and take it out. Or lure it out. Otherwise, accept you have already beat it and move on. At 300M range, it isn't hurting you or anything else for that matter. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1261	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:12:00 - [19] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes Agreed Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:06:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. EDIT: Also hardly a guilt thing, but people have been slinging around the "Oh you must not know what you're talking about" bull. I suppose the main difference is that I don't run tanks constantly, I use them situationally when I feel there is a need then I recall it when I'm done. So if there is a tank that needs to be dealt with or a dropship causing issues, I'll call the tank in, kill them, then recall it. In general I use HAVs as AV platforms anyways, so the number of player kills I get with them is pretty low since I typically am ignoring infantry. I've been playing the blaster a bit more of late. It's decent V vs V. With a standard blaster (impossible to do better on my maddie) I tend to hold my own against certain fits, coming out on top many times. Though as a few have mentioned, and now something I've seen for myself, a double hardened gunnlogi will out perform it. There just isn't a possibility to break through that regen. I think addressing that with a blaster would make it perform much better in a close encounter with another tank. Blaster fire should at the very least, PAUSE SHIELD REGEN. I have found I hate more than anything encountering double hardened gunnlogis with a blaster when I KNOW I should hold a large advantage given my turret rotation and bonus damage against shields. I SHOULD hold an advantage, not necessarily translating into a win, but an advantage if these things are used correctly. As it is, blaster fire is stonewalled against that which it should be strong against, shields, double hardened or not. But to offer my suggestion, a decrease to RoF and an increase to damage per shot, should allow it to punch through the shield regen. A lower RoF would also decrease the dispersion build up slightly I assume, making it a little easier with infantry, but a huge difference against larger targets at range. I think the blaster is set at 150M range but in reality you need to be within 50 - 75 meters to cause any noticeable damage to large targets largely due to the horrible dispersion. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.09 14:56:00 - [21] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 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. These kind of arguments don't even make sense. Basic blaster doesn't do enough damage to proto hardened shields doesn't mean nerf shields or buff basic blaster, make it so ion cannon will fit on madrugar. It doesn't do enough damage to a basic hardened fit either. I've tested this with a proto ion against duel hardeners to the same result btw. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

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.