the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive.

i would say that blasters and missiles are swapping places in this, and that kind of TTK isn't what we're asking for. We want it to go up, not down.

Blaster DPS in my chart is actually lower than current slightly Godin.

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.

Breakin, one point of contention. Are you sure your blaster damage is enough to stop shield regen? No point in any amount of dps if it can't do that.

800 dps will stop shield regen I'm pretty sure.

What's the minimum damage threshold again?

Adjusting the numbers to do that isn't hard. I made them consistent so the whole weapon line can ba modular and adjusted evenly across the board.

"mVICProp.minDamageToCauseShieldRechargePause": 102

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.

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.

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.

And a rail or missile can't break a Maddy in 30 seconds?

closer to 3

My point.

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.

I personally think that in general, large blasters should have better AI capabilities than the other large turrets and lesser AV capabilities than the other large turrets. It could be done by relative damage output, by relative optimal engagement ranges, etc. As long as it can fit itself on the AI-AV spectrum as Pokey has mentioned a while back:

(In order of increasing/decreasing AV/AI): small blaster, missile, railgun, large blaster, missile, railgun.

There needs to be an escalation in order to bring out missile and railgun HAVs, and I see the large blaster as the first step in the escalation. A HAV fitted primarily for AI will pose a big threat to enemy infantry (at the expense of being susceptible to enemy vehicles), and this will cause the enemy team to start fielding AV oriented HAVs. I see it no different from an infantryman with a rifle being susceptible to enemy vehicles, or an AV infantryman being susceptible to enemy infantry.

In short, there needs to be a way for vehicles to pose a direct threat to infantry. Without that, they have no purpose beyond transport and WP for the enemy. I see pilots as removing themselves from the position to capture objectives, but should instead help their fellow infantry to capture objectives by putting pressure on the enemy infantry. Then you get other pilots removing themselves from the infantry battle in order to engage the enemy vehicle that's putting pressure on infantry.

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.

EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that?

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.

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.