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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 17 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:30:00 - [1] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Silver Strike44 463	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:34:00 - [2] - Quote First My YouTube Channel
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 166	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:39:00 - [3] - Quote I've always been more in favor of a Shotgun or PLC style Blaster Turret (currently have shotgun style in my HAV spreadsheet). Shotgun style should spread it's damage out over an area approx the size of a 50% dilated Large Blaster Turret reticule at about 50-60meters if that's the way to go with it. Railgun could benefit from being slowed down in terms of RoF, while increasing its Damage (Reducing overall DPS by approx 20% should do the trick). Add a bit of splash damage and radius to give it a bit of a chance at fighting back AV infantry (Low ROF should prevent it from being too powerful provided proper consideration for splash damage amount is taken into account.) Large "Missile" Turrets are a bid harder to tackle, because I like the way they're set up currently...but I'd change them to a burst fire weapon, reduce reload speed or modify how the skill affects it (I think you saw talk about how the SP investment for Missile Turret Rapid reload wasn't worth it at all)...missile speed needs to be increased base for it to be very useful as a medium range weapon (out of curiosity, what is the current projectile speed on both the missile turret and the rail turret?) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 135	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:15:00 - [4] - Quote While you are taking a look at the large turrets, is it possible for you to rebalance the large turrets of installations ? Especially the large blaster installation. Prima Gallicus diplomat Eve 21 day Trial
Brush Master Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1404	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:19:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, 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. [/url] If you are focusing on tank rebalance, I would suggest sticking to large turrets, once you touch small turrets your are greatly effecting dropships. I do not believe small turrets are currently a big factor in tanking. I assume by your description that you are reintroducing Small Fragmented for the purpose of dropships to use with larger splash radius but reduced alpha damage. If the current small missile is to become AV what does the railgun become? as stated in the past, railguns were AV, small was hybrid and blaster was infantry. Right now, the most viable turret that most every dropship will be a missile due to range, damage and tracking. Gunners simple have a hard time hitting someone and have a short time to get a kill, thus missile. Dropships can not stay put long enough in most games for blasters and rails to work effectively. Just looking at my games over the past week, gunners ranged from 4-10 kills with either an adv or proto missile in a standard defensive built dropship. Please use caution if you touch small turrets. Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 924	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:40:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. [...] Please discuss. I'm going to discuss the AV turret's primary purpose, if I may. I kind of like the model of "rail is AV, missile hybrid and blaster AI" that we used to have since Dust's inception. This ties HAVs into the escalation of a match nicely. Deploy blaster to suppress or kill infantry, use rail to scare off blaster. Deploy missile if you don't want to commit. I assume your comment towards fragmented missile launchers hints at an attempt to make variants of turrets for AV and AI purposes. Please skip the next paragraph if I'm wrong in that assertion. In the meantime I'd like to comment that, if this disparity is too strong, this is rather unintuitive design. As a vehicle player I can see from 300 meters out whether the HAV I'm attacking has a blaster, missile or rail turret and can thus conclude its purpose. If there are AV and AI variants of the turrets that actually change the purpose of what the turrets do then I won't know until A) it has started shooting at me or B) it pops up on the killfeed and I'm lucky enough that no two HAVs with the same turret type are on the field. Neither of these sound like fun. And it has the potential to get worse from the perspective of infantry. Thus I'd like to suggest to keep the designed roles of the turrets like they used to be. But please go ahead and make variants of the turrets that make them slightly lean towards the AV or AI function within their design space. Much like before the old variants were removed.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:41:00 - [7] - Quote Believe it or not smalls need a checkup. Not a nerf though. Small rails are ineffectual for the most part, small blblasters are borderline worthless. Small missiles, however, are not in a bad place. They work well on a dropship. The only real problem is the projectiles spawn in bizarre places with screwy flight paths when fired from moving ground vehicles. AV
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 169	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:59:00 - [8] - Quote You should also check collision detection in general and for missiles particularly. One time I got shot with my own missile in a still dropship (gunner seat). <[^_^]>
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:01:00 - [9] - Quote Is it possible that we'll also see some semblance of racial parity from this too? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:11:00 - [10] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:12:00 - [11] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Is it possible that we'll also see some semblance of racial parity from this too? If no one else does I'm already theorycrafting large turrets for racial parity. Once we have the hulls finalized and the turrets we have redone all I have to do is math. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:20:00 - [12] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Is it possible that we'll also see some semblance of racial parity from this too? If no one else does I'm already theorycrafting large turrets for racial parity. Once we have the hulls finalized and the turrets we have redone all I have to do is math. I can maybe spitball some ideas for how different turrets might function, potentially with video examples if that would help your theorycrafting any. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:28:00 - [13] - Quote For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:30:00 - [14] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. Heat capacaity is 100 for all weapons, in the game, that I know of. Better to play with heat per shot rather than mess with that. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:34:00 - [15] - Quote 100 for maximum heat is a good number, makes total sense. Made an edit to previous post about lengthening missile 'volley' duration from 1.5s (10 shots @ .15s / shot) to 2.4 seconds (10 shots @ .24s / shot). Less punishing to miss individual shots and less instant-deathy. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:36:00 - [16] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I'm not great with how certain numbers would affect balance, but jumping missiles from 1.5 seconds (proposed) for full volley to 2.4 maybe? I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. I believe a healthy increase to Railgun fitting, will make it more of a glasscannon. But you cant just compare the 3 shots, the applied dps is much reduced, due to heat f.ex. Take a special look at the columns marked as KPI, they coincide with the "best to worst" design philosophy below. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:37:00 - [17] - Quote IMO blaster should have a great difference through level, a basic/militia blaster cant kill everyone as before but at the same time ion and ADV blaster should get more accurancy, maybe through sharpsooter skill or something like that The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 184	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:40:00 - [18] - Quote 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 would not increase the rail heat buildup unless you plan on bringing back a active module to really help out with that. Blaster sucks vs tank and past 30 meters worthless vs. intelligent infantry. >.<

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15763	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [19] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 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 would not increase the rail heat buildup unless you plan on bringing back a active module to really help out with that. Blaster sucks vs tank and past 30 meters worthless vs. intelligent infantry. Reasons? And are you referring to the proposal? Did you read the numbers? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [20] - Quote 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 agree, be careful on heat per shot for railgun, atm is 4 shot and overheat, you can deal a great amountvof damage but nt enough for destroy a installation The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [21] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I'm not great with how certain numbers would affect balance, but jumping missiles from 1.5 seconds (proposed) for full volley to 2.4 maybe? I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. I believe a healthy increase to Railgun fitting, will make it more of a glasscannon. But you cant just compare the 3 shots, the applied dps is much reduced, due to heat f.ex. Take a special look at the columns marked as KPI, they coincide with the "best to worst" design philosophy below. My experience in current tank vs tank is that rail tanks frequently have enough EHP that they can survive blaster or missile fire long enough even with their slow RoF that they can easily win vs other tanks. Especially when you factor in things like damage mods. Fitting cost increases to rail might be appropriate, but I still forsee a lot S.H.A.V's with a large rail making other vehicles lives miserable. Peakaboo gameplay is something I witness frequently with current particle cannon tanks. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 924	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet There's an issue with rail turret overheat. The current one overheats after 4 rounds, your spreadsheet has that as 7. Not being an expert here, but total heat produced is probably something like (HeatPerSecond * FireInterval + HeatPerShot) * Number of shots fired. That would put a current railgun at 100.8 heat after 4 shots, which is where it currently overheats (41.48+4*14 = 100.8). As per your proposal that would put the new railgun at 2.5 shots to overheat, thus 3 rounds. Where we had 6784 hp damage until overheat we would now be at 5655 hp after the third shot.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:44:00 - [23] - Quote Can you make missile blast radius 2m and rail blast radius 1.5m? Missiles should have the larger blast radius as they should be more effective than rails against infantry but less so than blasters

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15763	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:44:00 - [24] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet There's an issue with rail turret overheat. The current one overheats after 4 rounds, your spreadsheet has that as 7. Not being an expert here, but total heat produced is probably something like (HeatPerSecond * FireInterval + HeatPerShot) * Number of shots fired. That would put a current railgun at 100.8 heat after 4 shots, which is where it currently overheats (41.48+4*14 = 100.8). As per your proposal that would put the new railgun at 2.5 shots to overheat, thus 3 rounds. Where we had 6784 hp damage until overheat we would now be at 5655 hp after the third shot. looking into it "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Nao Kun Nyain San 7	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:45:00 - [25] - Quote I hope Large Blaster Turret Clip 150~180 from 75 and blaster scattering, same from 'fixed blaster turret'? (japanglish sry) I love Madrugar.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14663	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:06:00 - [26] - Quote Can we get range in the weapon metrics too? I don't remember what the ranges are, and would like to compare. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:30:00 - [27] - Quote Alright I looked at your initial there. My first thought is that, unless you intend for EHP capaccapacityi to be based off the current Gunnlogi these turrets for AV will cause nosebleedingly short fights. 2000 DPS is mind-numbingly short duration. Currently the only turret that breaks 1000 DPS by any significant margin is the missile turret. For basic purposes, until you have the hulls locked down, that you make turret DPS step up rather than have one sub-1000 DPS cannon then two above 2000. Right now, without finalized hull average EHP I can only base these numbers off what we have now. My assesment In the aforementioned vacuum is that I think missiles need their rate of fire dropped and their velocity stepped up. There really should be no need for a fragmented version with a low splash damage hit with a moderate radius to represent collateral damage from a large shaped charge. In today's climate I'd recommend high alpha for rails around 1750 alpha and an overall base DPS of 700-750, a bit ahead of handheld AV. I would recommend setying missiles to a base 800-850 which would require a more sustained fire pattern than instablap barrage. And I would recommend setting blasblastersres to 900-950 DPS and tweak upward based on your finalized hulls. It will be easier to step the weapons up or down as needed en masse if we set up a baseline Rather than having to play guessing games with each one. If we start here, then it's easier to balance them so they can be used on infantry without being overpowering or needing special modules to tighten the dispersion. My two cents. Hope it helps. AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3830	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:53:00 - [28] - Quote Glad to see large rail AoE coming back, we will be able to destroy equipments and finish targets on low health. About the heat and precision of the blaster, i remeber damage mod which also increased the ROF, i was using them on a gunnlogi, the turret had a very improved ROF and precision, but heat build up was insane, only a heat sink could slow down it and the tank was rather fragile. That was balanced imho, that tank was designed to slay infantry as fast as i could without missing shots, but it wasn't very good for tank vs tank. So even if i have problem judging numbers without see actual in-game effects, i think that increase blaster heat build up is a good thing, if you want to make it more precise. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:54:00 - [29] - Quote Splah damage for particle accelerator and particle cannon? Not a huge one but just enough to 2-shot ak0 sentinels without a doible hit ( useless comment) The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6760	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:57:00 - [30] - Quote I should probably post my reasoning here: Infantry AAV and large turrets pretty much have the same function. I believe that the turrets should be more advantageous for killing tanks though, so I believe keeping their overall DPS ahead of infantry AV is the way to go But not by a vast margin. Both have the same TTK issue. If either kills too fast, why bother driving what is effectively a suicide box? But if they kill too slow then back to square 1. It's why I think vehicle guns and heavy/handhelds should follow similar lines. That being said, would it be bad if small rails behaved more like the assault forge gun. Traditionally infantry crew served weapons are simply vehicle pintle mounted weapons with parts swapped out for being usable by infantry. If we set it up right we could potentially be using vehicle model smalls as heavy weapons and vice versa. On a similar note, could the heavy weapons be converted to vehicle use as well? And finally on the heat mechanics. Heat was originally added to rails and blasters tou counteract infinite ammunition. Now that we actually have depletable ammunition magazines, is it feasible to looking at removing the trait in favor of ammo capacity control? AV



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.