|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
The-Errorist
971
   |
Posted - 2015.01.26 13:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Changes look pretty good, but the dispersion growth rate of blasters in general when firing needs go down.
Edit: as The True Inferno said, the ability to reload while overheating would be great for blasters.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
972
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 22:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds 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 ... I also think that the 2k DPS is a bit excessive on blasters compared to the 967 on rails. Blasters should be about 20-30% more DPS than rails, not 100% more imo...my reasoning is a combination of space-side blasters vs rails, but also a ratio greater than current infantry based weaponry (albeit slightly increased). If you're going to keep Large "Missile" Turret Salvo functionality, I think you're on the right track...particularly if you make armor hardeners worth fitting (See posts in the bring back initiative threads on having both Standard and Flux hardener for both shields and armor). Are you flat out opposed to changing how the current turrets work? (I.E.: No PLC or Shotgun Blaster)? Or are you saving discussion of that for once you get solid DPS and other Statistics numbers down?
You should also factor in how much more damage it does before it overheats before you decide if it's too much. It'll do 3.6k more damage before overheat and with that combined info, it does sound like too much of a buff.
In defense of the increased RoF
Will it make it much better at being AI?
No, no directly; the high starting dispersion and how much each shot increases it would make the increased RoF harder to hit infantry, unless you do even shorter controlled bursts than required now.
It would be a lot better If the fire interval was 0.12 (500 instead of proposed 600 RPM), so the alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively.
But wont it wreck infantry more effectively and with its increased damge/rof?
If you make the dispersion higher AND make it so that continuous fire barely increase dispersion, it would have a consistency to its inaccuracy (like aSCR spread), but accurate enough to do its job as an AV turret.
Rattiti, can't you just make a Large PLC turret using the large blaster?
Pokey Dravon wrote:
Harpyja wrote "...
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.
I would love a bit of passive tracking to make my rocket launcher a missile launcher or just an increase to its projectile speed.
MINA Longstrike wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:they where designed to be a hard counter to armor, and i always assumed that laser turrets would be OP vs shields whenever they come out Hard counters are terrible design. Soft counters are much nicer. Essentially it goes 'ha stupid idiot, you brought out something that wasn't the meta, hope you like dying!'. It turns it into a contest of stats rather than a contest of skill.
You are exaggerating the effects of having weapons with specialized damage profiles (laser and explosive).
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
972
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 22:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot.
Have you seen the insane proposed PG/CPU stats for the Gallente tanks? They'll be able to fit almost everything. Here's some example fits:
PRO tank: 3822 PG & 1093 CPU
All proto
Large Blaster
2 Small Railguns
Blaster dmg mods
Fuel Injector
Armor Hardener
120mm plate
Heavy rep
Leftover: 960 PG and 213 CPU.
ADV tank: 3227 PG & 930 CPU
Same as above
Leftover: 50PG and 365 CPU.
STD tank: 3070 PG & 901 CPU
Same as above
Leftover: 208PG and 21 CPU.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
973
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 23:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:It's not proposed till it's proposed. Until then it's just numbers on a spreadsheet. The intent is a narrow full protofit of not the most expensive mods with all fitting skills.
Ok, I also noticed I used the derived instead of other and fixed it on my post
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
You guys know how the assault scrambler rifle fires right? No noticeable recoil and has dispersion, but that dispersion doesn't increase the longer you fire.
My point is basically what I've said in post #98: Give the large blaster a bit more dispersion, but make that dispersion barely increase while being fired continuously.
That way it would be consistently hard to kill infantry with, continuous fire against vehicles would work at close-medium range like it should, and everyone will be happy.
Also if the DPS is too high and think the RoF increase was bad, and would indirectly make killing infantry easier, here's a compromise:
Change the fire interval to 0.12 (500 instead of proposed 600 RPM), so the raw alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:You guys know how the assault scrambler rifle fires right? No noticeable recoil and has dispersion, but that dispersion doesn't increase the longer you fire. My point is basically what I've said in post #98: Give the large blaster a bit more dispersion, but make that dispersion barely increase while being fired continuously. That way it would be consistently hard to kill infantry with, continuous fire against vehicles would work at close-medium range like it should, and everyone will be happy. Also if the DPS is too high, think the RoF increase was bad, and would indirectly make killing infantry easier, here's a compromise: Change the fire interval to 0.12 (500 instead of 600 RPM), so the raw alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively. Anything over 1000 DPS before skills will be HORRIFICALLY overpowered given the EHP counts we're actually looking at.
Like I said, it was a compromise.
In the defense of raising the DPS:
Currently the large blaster DPS is around 1000 and it sucks even at close range where it should shine. With the increased DPS, it would be a lot better, but because it would overheat faster and has less shots per clip, I feel like that would make it balanced.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods.
Not even a large missile turret?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
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?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote: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.
You are right and it's also relative towards LAV/Dropship/Tank HP.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote: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? by dropping the DPS to match the meta of: High alpha = low DPS Midrange alpha = midrange DPS Low alpha = high DPS. the numbers I have worked out have the blaster turret between 750-850 DPS depending on the variant before skills or damage mods. The rails are running around 650 right now, and missiles are the monkey in the middle at 750 DPS All of them are still higher DPS than handheld AV I'm poking into shape. these numbers assume that the main battle tanks average out around 10,000 EHP. The numbers will adjust up or down according to the final HAV hull numbers easily because I like consistency.
That actually looks good.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
|
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
What do you guys thing about my solution to large blaster dispersion?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:What do you guys thing about my solution to large blaster dispersion? I'm actually deliberately rigging turrets so they aren't as overpowering versus infantry so we don't have to be as gun-shy about letting them HIT infantry
OK, and if you succeeded, would you want to keep the way dispersion is on large blasters or change it?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
992
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
For those of you who forgot/don't know, this is the point of the thread. If you can't follow it, don't post here, post in some other thread.
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.
Also from the spreadsheet, he wants
Quote:Blaster dps is only constrained by heat
Missile dps is only constrained by time between alpha strikes - so reload time and ammo in clip
Railgun dps is constrained by charge up and heat
And damage profiles are probably not up for debate and would stay the same against shields/armor:
Hybrid plasma: +10/-10 %
Hybrid rail: -10/+10 %
Explosive: -20/+20 %
Messing with these will also mess with infantry weapons.
A bit like how rifles where balanced for infantry,
a large blaster in it's optimal range should be superior to large missiles and railguns;
a large missile in it's optimal range should be superior to large blasters and railguns;
a large railgun in it's optimal range should be superior to large blasters and missiles.
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.
Tebu Gan wrote:...
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.
You are forgetting that they can also fit AI small turrets and with the DHAVs and UHAVs there will be clearer roles: regular basic tanks will be generalist, DHAVs will be better at AV, and UHAVs will be better at AI.
MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill
Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
|
The-Errorist
993
|
Posted - 2015.02.02 19:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Currently DMG to overheat for large blasters and rails are basically the same and large blaster's should be higher
Railguns should have higher alpha dps than blasters, but overheat before doing more damage than a blaster can before it overheats.
Blaster's reload speed should be faster instead of the same as a large railgun's.
Sustained DPS(considering reload speed and overheat) of large blaster should be higher, not smaller compared to a large missile.
MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill
Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
|
The-Errorist
994
|
Posted - 2015.02.03 19:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed.
I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets.
MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill
Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
|
The-Errorist
999
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 02:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote: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.
Turret rotation is fine, just clip size need to be cut and reload time needs to be increased.
MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill
Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
|
The-Errorist
1000
|
Posted - 2015.02.05 17:30:00 -
[17] - 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
dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss
Would make them have higher damage per shot and lower RoF which is what AV turrets should be like which would also help with stopping shield regen and be generally easier to balance as AV.
My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos
Racial tanks
|
The-Errorist
1015
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 09:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
I like the following changes for large turrets:
Relatively increased alpha DPS of blasters
Lower RoF blaster with higher damage
Increase reload time for and rails
Some splash for rails, but I think 1.5m should be enough
What I don't like:
Increased reload time for missiles when they have a 1k damage clip size nerf; it's too much at once.
Damage to overheat is a bit too high for rails compared to blasters
Railguns having more ammo than missiles makes no sense.
My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos
Racial tanks
|
The-Errorist
1022
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 21:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:one thing I think should be kept in mind is the higher the RoF it seems the WORSE hit detection gets in my experience.
Accelerating the blaster might not be a great idea.
Yeah and I remember how the breach AR was the only good weapon in closed beta because of this.
My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos
Racial tanks
|
The-Errorist
1027
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 21:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Will you guys stop calling standard stuff basic!? Also you guys realize that proto hardeners give the same damage reduction as militia, so stop comparing stuff to specifically proto hardeners.
My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos
Racial tanks
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|