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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

Yet again, this thread is derailing.

Yet again, this thread is derailing.

Guidance Principles
Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme
Railgun is too good at everything
Blaster is not good enough at close

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.

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

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.

...

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.

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.

I'm sure we can expect them to be at around 6-10k eHP for a T I HAV, and therefore the turrets shouldn't do more than a thousand DPS per second, otherwise we would have the sort battles that we have now.

I've stayed quiet for too long. Here's the deal folks.

I have full V everything blaster, and can watch a SICA go hardened, and watch the damage stop. I got the pure cold drop on a gunni only to have it harden, start regen, and turbo off into the redline sunset.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I don't even go after armor tanks because if they have a rep and a hardener, see youtube link.
Yes.
I have killed fledgling tankers in their badly fit MLT tanks with ease. ...
With ions and a blaster dmg mod.

Our range sucks.
Our dispersion sucks.
Our DPS is a joke.

And that's versus VEHICLES.

First I must say, Ratti-man, I love you. Idk how one dude can make the difference you have, but keep it up.

Now the taboo.

A solo-fit rail is 90% of the time far far away from viable AV threats.

A solo -fit missile can suppress AV.

A solo-fit blaster is, well, yeah Tommy.

The AV players know, that on foot, versus blaster, they have a 7-9% chance of dying. They just run straight at you dripping saliva and disgorging all manner of AV. (I do it... can confirm) Of course the AV players will bellow "oh GG man, you just can't aim" *cough* When blasters worked, if you rushed me in an AV suit, I would pop your grape. ( I still hear that loverly sound with my ARR so it's all good)

The Rattati-man himself has spoken and declared blasters AV, and I respect that. But they are now in a place that even with skill, it can make you respec.
The blaster was the tank that kept foot AV off the rangers, and turned the tide in a blitz with multiple tanks. Simple as that.
My feels was to drive through the smoldering hull of my enemy after I ran him through.
Now I feel like this: http://youtu.be/Zy7OdvPvFyU The hare, obviously.

Maybe a 7-10m radius that has very low dispersion? Maybe raise large turret a tiny hair and give us lower aim? Reduce dispersion, but give an AI dmg penalty? Idk if that would be a coding nightmare or not. If "be suppressed" is always the only option, I will just stop tanking for good.


TL;DR - Blasters have been nerfed to a state where foot AV can just have their way with you. Nolo contendere. We have to be close to fight. Can we fix this without breaking balance?


p.s. I pulse my blasters in 3-5 round braps to avoid dispersion and heat and can still barely get shots on a tank rusher. Try hitting a scout that's sprinting, jumping, tossing grenades, and remotes, and plasma, with a gun that does shoot where you aim it... lol oh wait

This. This right here is very much why I refer to attacking vehicles as akin to a mugging. This is why I wanted to be involved in the process.

Because knowing I'm not likely to die unless the stars align is not fun for me.

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.