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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16818	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:49:00 - [1] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: 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. That's not a tank gun and I suggested something like this a couple of weeks ago which you spat on. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16834	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:43:00 - [2] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The breach forge takes 5 seconds to fire. Quit being disingenuous. . 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? No you ass it does 400 damage per second, as the Forgegun fires and cycles over the duration of 5 seconds, for a total alpha of 2000 damage. What about that do you not understand? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16834	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:18:00 - [3] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Unless lazer is taka in which case they're joined at the hip anyway. Regardless, at least Rattati realises that Spkr is an idiot. #FreeHynox btw They banned him? Poor guy......he just wrote trashy fan fiction.... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:23:00 - [4] - Quote Still not convinced rapid firing turrets are the right way to go for tank combat but we'll see what happens with the feed back from this thread. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:36:00 - [5] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Still not convinced rapid firing turrets are the right way to go for tank combat but we'll see what happens with the feed back from this thread. I'd prefer bursts of damage for large turrets, not the high fire rate that we have now. Either the shotgun idea or the multi-PLC shot idea. I've been attempting to rationalise the various applications of the Shotgun Hybrid Charge, its functionality, etc. It's probably one of the more interesting designs for a weapon I've heard of, especially when you consider the the magazine fed autoloader we talked about a while back. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:39:00 - [6] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Not necessarily. I think all Large Turrets should have an anti infantry capacity but more in the sense of AoE splash damage and direct hit damage or coaxial small turrets rather than large turret designs that are spray and pray and don't make sense from the perspective (anti vehicle) that they are trying to be shoehorned into. ...... like the Large Blaster. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:08:00 - [7] - 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. Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16843	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:36:00 - [8] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. That's more than fine but the two iterations of it we have seen....one has been pin point accurate 1000+ DPS anti infantry monster, and the other has been a sub 1000 DPS anti infantry luck fest. Neither of those were......ideal shall we say and they cannot be Anti Tank/Vehicle Guns an still ineffective against infantry if the Heavy Machine Gun archetype is continually applied to the turret. There are numerous different manners that we can circumvent this.... but you and I know these won't change. -One is your shotgun shell Blaster. One one hand its a slower rate of fire with more damage per shot, on the other its a very big shotgun so you "could" engage infantry. -Another is the Autocannon "Large Blaster" we talked about weeks ago which fires a plasma cannon round per second but has a small magazine capacity and faster reload cycle. There are many others that could be considered. I too want tanks to have the means to engage other tanks as a primary role with infantry as a secondary or tertiary target requiring more precise aim to kill. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16845	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:46:00 - [9] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? Driving and Shooting stuff. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16847	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:09:00 - [10] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Would it be possible to have independent turret rotation speeds and use that as a balancing factor? Blasters can spin 360 in 6 seconds, Missiles take 9, Rails take 12? Something like that might help. It might.... and at the same time might not. Dust 514's turret traversal speeds from the missiles and rails are unbearably slow for an FPS game...... not the slowest on tanks I've seen but there aren't infantry units in those games........ "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16847	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:11:00 - [11] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: 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. Tanks, Dropships, LAV, Infantry...... whatever you want assuming you have the ability to aim at moving targets. Think Battlefield 4. You could use the Coaxial HMG but why bother? Another tank with two tank shells will have a significantly faster fire rate and almost always **** you up plus if you are using some combination like the Sabot and Cannister Shots you can honestly rack up incredibly infantry kills with a little bit of aim. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16850	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:21:00 - [12] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court. I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions. 1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close. 2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage. Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target. Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea. Imagine a Plasma Cannon with 6 rounds in its magazine, a fair splash damage, quick cycle rate, that fires one single round per second. Much more flexible. You can close with the enemy and lay into them like you want to. You have multiple shots that you can use to test fire arcs and compensate for, and bump dat m/s value and you have a damn solid weapon for the gallente that means that gives them fair range. Though to be fair I still favour the Tri-Barrel and Shotgun shell ideas over this one. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16850	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:28:00 - [13] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire? #BurstFireDIENOW But I suppose its fundamentally the same design since lore wise the rounds of the Tri-Barrel Fire within Microseconds of one another to compound the destructive force of the Hybrid Charges. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16850	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:53:00 - [14] - 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. I've already done that CCP Rattati. No dev response or input. I do appreciate that you want to bring balance to vehicles which is wonderful but I think that I'm personally beginning to see that you wish to take vehicles in a specific direction that's not particularly interesting to me. As such I wish you luck in your development and balancing efforts. Hopefully you can make vehicles balanced and enjoyable for the other players who favour the existing assets. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16866	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:01:00 - [15] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Railgun: If railguns are supposed to be AV only, then they need to be better at it than the other turrets. If blasters are just as good as rails at AV with AI capability besides, then what's the point of running it? Because Rails have 300m range and Blasters have like....30-40m? The same principle applies to infantry weapons, where the Plasma Rifle has better DPS than the Rail Rifle. The Railgun will be better AV in far more situations than a Blaster will, so overall its a better choice. EDIT: Also agree. Missiles with falloff doesn't make sense, they should do full damage up to their point of self detonation. I'd also love to see them be more effective at longer ranges so the DPS can be brought down to more reasonable levels. If you think about the fact that fuel is added into missile strength calculations irl depending on the type, it really does make sense, but depending on how smart our warheads are, and how strong the fuel is would decide that. We could go with man ways to go about it: Stronger fuel and weaker warhead, which has a stronger close range and a high travel speed, but ****** at range (accelerated rockets?), vice versa for slower but less of a dropoff, maybe weaker (normal), etc. That makes no sense. Fuel has nothing to do with the payload of a missile (ie: the part that goes boom) I could MAYBE understand the missiles slowing down as the run out of fuel, but reduced damage? Unless some complete moron decided to use the payload as fuel (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Then missile damage should be consistent at 0m and at max range. Depending on the warhead perhaps super dense materials are involved which affects the standard trajectories of the missiles. For example lore explains the Javelin Hybrid Charge fires a Super Dense Sabot Round....perhaps with gravity applied to their super dense materials they suffer from "in game" trajectories. However again I don't mean to de-rail just a potential explaination. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16866	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:17:00 - [16] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Why do you not split the turrets, large that is, into 2 types? One with AV functionality and one with AI functionality. This has always perplexed me. Why is this not a viable strategy to balancing tanks. It would seem to me that it would give tanks a place among themselves to be on the battlefield. AI tank pinning you down, pull out the AV turret, or the AV infantry. My question to you is, why would anyone ever have small turrets? Under your model it would make sense that Large AP turrets would be innately better than Small AP turrets, right?. Would it not make more sense to just run 3 solo tanks together, rather than put the 3 pilots in the same tank at that point, since 3 Large AP Turrets > 1 Large + 2 Small AP turrets? This, and why would there be a big ass turret for a small ass target? Because bigger turret means bigger boom against smaller target. All kidding aside, it isn't that simple to say that 3 large turrets are better than one plus two smalls. You have to consider many other things other than just pure damage. For one, three HAVs are much more expensive to operate simultaneously as opposed to one HAV and two gunners. Second, three HAVs uses up a larger portion of the team vehicle limit. It is also much easier to maneuver around, engage, and escape with just one HAV as opposed to three. The three HAVs have to stick together to be powerful, and one on its own is weaker than a HAV with two gunners. This now brings me to the point that the small turrets do not have to be AI like the large turret. Two AV small turrets plus the AI large turret should be able to rival a HAV with one AV large turret. Both methods have advantages, but I see the three simultaneous HAVs much more difficult to coordinate. It proved difficult enough back when Uprising was released to have two HAVs spider tanking each other and move around together as a single unit to keep the reps active. Also, going back to my comment on using small turrets with the opposite role of your large turret is more advantageous, as it allows your primary focus to be what your large turret is and through teamwork, you can level the playing field against the other role, unless if your opponent is specialized in that role (3 AV turrets > 1 AV large + 2 AI small) That would logically infer that you are using bigger rounds for increased payload. Bigger rounds mean longer chambering time and slower fire rates. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16918	Posted - 2015.02.02 00:29:00 - [17] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: 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) I'll take that one on and say I can and should. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16918	Posted - 2015.02.02 02:44:00 - [18] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. Sorry...I can't resist a chance to make techno-babble myself I think 2k Blaster DPS is too high myself on the Blaster BTW...should sit somewhere around 860-1000 DPS... But I do firmly believe that all Large Turrets should be designed to be Primarily Anti-Material However everything you suggested is essentially correct...... barring of course I would think the shrapnel/AOE. The techno babble is wondrous. But again that's to de-rail from the intended topic since we know turrets aren't changing. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16931	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:44:00 - [19] - Quote Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:03:00 - [20] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The-Errorist wrote: 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. He means like in an Abrams main turret kind if way. Yeah I don't like the idea for firing more than 1-2 shells in rapid succession....and by rapid I do mean within the space of 3 seconds. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17020	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:57:00 - [21] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: why so mad though lol if you can't figure away out to use your highslots properly for a missile tank fit with 5 highs on shields and 3 highs on armor then i don't know what to say other than don't park your missile tank in front of rails and just hold down fire expecting +75 +75 +50. Try using rails, it seems more your style if you can't manage with 8000 insta damage and unskilled 12 sec reload. Lol at player who suggests a main gun that fires every 1.8 seconds takes skill to use. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17050	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:16:00 - [22] - Quote Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17062	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:38:00 - [23] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? Artys are what you're looking for. A blaster is not. Still going for Shotty turret, and current blaster design as medium turrets does sound like a great idea, which is why I asked for it a long time ago. A Blaster COULD be a turret I would use. Shotgun could work if it is implemented correctly. Keep those auto shotguns away from its design and you might have a winner. Thaddeus said burst fire could work as well but you'd need a proper down time between the bursts. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17065	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:44:00 - [24] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? Artys are what you're looking for. A blaster is not. Still going for Shotty turret, and current blaster design as medium turrets does sound like a great idea, which is why I asked for it a long time ago. A Blaster COULD be a turret I would use. Shotgun could work if it is implemented correctly. Keep those auto shotguns away from its design and you might have a winner. Thaddeus said burst fire could work as well but you'd need a proper down time between the bursts. I don't care if it's full auto or semi auto (although burst fire shotty would be weird, I'd have to play with that), as long as it's a shotty, and it has a decent damage application and a good enough spread to apply decent damage to a enemy HAV within like 45m, I would probably like it. EDIT: You were asking for a turret made to be explosive ordinance type cannon sort of thing. That fits artys to the T as far as I've seen looking at consensus on concepts (either a direct cannon similar to that of modern day tanks, or indirect howitzer similar to that of self propelled guns). A blaster doesn't really, as it's both not long range weapons, as well as not very explosive in nature comparing to that of artys, hell even Rockets or missiles fits you better. It fits all turret types tbh I was talking more about the Tri-Shot being burst fire though. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."