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)
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2539	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:06:00 - [331] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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. Suppose a shell like you describe with an entire railgun reload time between shots? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 305	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:58:00 - [332] - Quote The new proposed damage of the proto turret ( no damage buff ) is disappointing, but if the new heat build up numbers do let you get off 4 shots without over heating I can see it not being much of an issue. The DHAV damage bonus to blasters and missiles is going to make every rail shot count as that dps is going to be quite high.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6947	Posted - 2015.02.04 12:26:00 - [333] - Quote Hey Rattati, if I may offer some critique on your latest? One of the reasons I was keeping distance between the turret types and keeping them below a baseline 1000 DPS was to leave room for growth via skills and damage mods. Unless you intend to leave most of the skills blank (which I do not recommend) it'll have a sharp effect on DPS that may or may not be intended. I can't read your mind. But part of the problem is that there's very little difference between a new player and a veteran player running the same fit. If there's no variance that's discernable then we'll retain speedball TTK at the lowest levels and for AV infantry Prototype weapons will default to weapons of first resort rather than an escalation. I would personally like to see more escalation and less "Oh look a vehicle. Get the Wiyrkomis and IAFGs." If you were to use my numbers or scale them up it leaves room for things like shifting the turret rotation bonuses to the heavy turret operation skills while allowing for things such as a +3%-4% to applicable tank damage per level, rather akin to infantry weapons which can stack with damage mods as we have them now without dropping TTK too sharply while still noticably lowering TTK. It would also give DHAVs with a solid DPS bonus a chance to kill a target before getting blapped. This is just my thought, based on my desire to see the depth and breadth of the vehicle skill tree having space to open and improve rather than merely being a pattern of unlocks. The more we make skills matter, the less vehicles will feel like an SP paywall, and the more variation we will see. I hesitate to bring up cookie cutter fits and beat this dead horse more, but the more skills matter, the more modules are affected, and the more skill matters to turret DPS the less the term "cookie cutter" can be applied to the HAV pilots and their vehicles. Hope the input helps. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2865	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:53:00 - [334] - Quote 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. Do you have my turret spreadsheet? As far as the large missile, lower the damage, give the Falchion a damage bonus to the missile turret to fulfill its intended role. As far as the rail, I feel it's in a good place. It doesn't need a damage nerf, as it won't get a damage bonus for any role or hull. The blaster does need less dispersion, the large one. It'll help as a tank closes in on a target. The small should have less dispersion as its meant for anti infantry. What are your ideas for the fragmented? Obviously less damage, preferably faster fire rate. I'm not hot on the idea of an active module for anti infantry purposes. Will it work for just the blaster, or the large missile too? How about the railgun? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2866	Posted - 2015.02.04 18:03:00 - [335] - 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 The railgun already generates more than enough heat per round. If the trigger is held down, how many rounds can be fired? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.04 18:46:00 - [336] - Quote 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. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
The-Errorist 999	Posted - 2015.02.05 02:17:00 - [337] - 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
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6954	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:39:00 - [338] - Quote Cutting the mag on rails will mean no margin for error. 9 round mags are a bit tight for ammo. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:06:00 - [339] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: (not gonna name names, but Spkr) and that gets everyone all riled up until we are trying to win the argument, not to find balance. I don't post to "start fights." I post to indicate errors, things that people would know from experience if they were to ever pilot a tank. I decided to check the status of two of the forum's loudest voices when it comes to this vehicle rebalance stuff, and you know what I saw? Neither of them have played in over a month. Could be far longer than that. They're the voice of reason, yet haven't played in a long time, and I'm the extremist, calling a lot of ideas bad, because they're proposed by people that don't use vehicles, and I play basically every day. So, you go figure that one out. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:09:00 - [340] - Quote Skybladev2 wrote: 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). That's been in the game for over a year, and unless it's posted on here with video evidence, it most likely will never get looked at because there's other stuff to do. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:11:00 - [341] - 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. It takes too long to kill an anti-armor starter suit at 15m away with a blaster. Have great aim, get nerfed because of it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:14:00 - [342] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: 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. You probably don't see any armor tanks. Especially when you factor in things like damage mods. Even harder to fit on an armor tank. 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. What are they supposed to use? Peakaboo gameplay is something I witness frequently with current particle cannon tanks. You must be watching some bad tankers, and I don't mean very many people with 5mil SP into any vehicle skills. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16587	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:58:00 - [343] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2459	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:16:00 - [344] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ^^My vote FWIW We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8436	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:31:00 - [345] - 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 APC Turret, yo. Just -FEELS- powerful. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
SponkSponkSponk WarRavens Capital Punishment. 1132	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:31:00 - [346] - Quote Lower, but not ridiculously low. About 120RPM (roughly equivalent to a Vickers S auto cannon), but I can sort of see how the existing blaster is modelled more like a QF 1-pounder pom-pom. Dust/Eve transfers
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 928	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:00:00 - [347] - Quote Like an APC definitely or just lower in general.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 966	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:07:00 - [348] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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 If anti infantry: ROF as implemented currently. If anti vehicle: APC style.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 854	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:16:00 - [349] - Quote apc style unless... medium turrets. then tank style
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6955	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:06:00 - [350] - Quote Slower RoF. .25 -.5 seconds between shots range would be my preference. AV

Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2460	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:13:00 - [351] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: apc style unless... medium turrets. then tank style Looking forward to medium turrets is exactly why I voted tank style. Better to lay framework now rather than need to rebalance everything later. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2079	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:42:00 - [352] - 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 I want a shotgun blaster turret. 8 pellets at 150dmg/pellet and .6s refire (2000dps) or 10pellets at 120dmg/pellet and .6s refire (2000dps). Much less murder vs infantry (though still threatening because of incidental damage). I'll agree that missile RoF is too high right now - you can fire so fast that kick/dispersion throws your missiles off target, I almost want to go back to the old style large missile turrets that fired in bursts (just with appropriately upscaled missile damage). I do not like extremely short TTK on vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 810	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:51:00 - [353] - 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 Blaster ROF is fine the way it is. Most other tanks in FPS are trying to imitate life, and even then get it mixed up. Dust has its own style, that players already like. Missile ROF is also fine as is. Straight talk: These are two issues that I haven't seen brought up before from either tankers or infantry, so if your going to go with your feelings be prepared for a huge backlash if it doesn't quite work out. My advice: If it aint broke dont fix it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2870	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:00:00 - [354] - 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 You know what, practically everybody used the scattered blaster when we had it. If you want a module to help against infantry, then we use that to reduce the dispersion while slightly decreasing damage. I say slightly because it's not easy to kill infantry now. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2870	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:01:00 - [355] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: 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 Blaster ROF is fine the way it is. Most other tanks in FPS are trying to imitate life, and even then get it mixed up. Dust has its own style, that players already like. Missile ROF is also fine as is. Straight talk: These are two issues that I haven't seen brought up before from either tankers or infantry, so if your going to go with your feelings be prepared for a huge backlash if it doesn't quite work out. My advice: If it aint broke dont fix it. Missile is too fast. Destroyer should get a rate of fire bonus, and a damage bonus. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2079	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:09:00 - [356] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2871	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:25:00 - [357] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. If you don't like what I have to say, then just block me on here, problem solved. You're essentially covering your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you." Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
The-Errorist 1000	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:30:00 - [358] - 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
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2306	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:48:00 - [359] - 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 My honest opinion on the large blaster: just make it more geared towards fighting infantry compared to the other large turrets. You might think that lowering its ROF will make it weaker against infantry, but I feel that that won't give you the desired effect. Lowering its ROF means increasing its damage. Now you get a large blaster that can one-shot most infantry while still maintaining a decent ROF (actually, the perfect balance between ROF and direct damage: not too much direct damage like the large railgun where you're dealing too much damage and are losing ROF, but just enough direct damage to one-shot most infantry and boasting a higher ROF). You will forever see balance issues with the current design of the large blaster. Instead, just give it slightly lower DPS than the rest of the large turrets and remove its dispersion. Now it's a precision weapon which infantry should fear in the hands of a skilled pilot, but its lower DPS will put it at a natural disadvantage against other HAVs with a large missile or railgun. If you really want a Gallente AV large turret, then all I can say is, you'll have to come up with a new design. Others have already talked about this and have been giving good feedback on. Probably the best one I like is a plasma cannon-like large turret. Low ROF like a railgun, but higher direct damage due to it having a limited effective range and a slower projectile travel time. There's your Gallente AV large turret. Keep the current large blaster as geared more towards anti-infantry. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 812	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:09:00 - [360] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Slower RoF. .25 -.5 seconds between shots range would be my preference. With ratattis sheet thats between 2.5 to 5 seconds to fire a full clip, then another 12 seconds to reload. Kiss that missile tank good bye. Thats at 30 to 40 seconds to get off the 24 shots we have now in 12.8 seconds. Besides this , I had another look at the spread sheet. If these were the numbers finalized for today: Rails will be able to do 8,480 damage (+1,696) before overheat, 12 round clips (+3), and 108 (+45) ammo total. Missiles wil be reduced to 5,400 (- 1074) damage before emptying the clip 10 (-2) round clips, 90 (-54) ammo total. Blasters will 5760 damage, 5,700 (- 792) damage before overheat, 75 (-130) round clips, 675 (-145)ammo total. I don't know how the future hull bonuses / SP sinks will affect the future meta. It looks like 10 skill books minimum are being b planned just for hulls( MBT, SHAV, 2 Faction SHAV, UHAV, DHAV, 2 Faction UHAV, 2 Faction DHAV). Everything may pan out, but i don't know all the details. That being said Current meta: This would certainly be the end of any tank that wasn't a rail. 20,352 damage per clip planned for rail tanks, massive ammo capacity mean the redline rails dont have to budge from their sniper nest the entire match. I can destroy installations without having to reload and still have enough ammo in the single clip to kill a tank. Blaster are a good second place choice. Nerfed pretty hard as well, but heat managment is the easiest on a blaster tank, so dumping a lot of damage is still possible. Considering every massive advantage the rail would have, up close you might have a shot. One vs one i certainly would pick it over the missiles. More damage, short cool down (you'll over heat cool down and start firing before a missile tank reloads) a shield blaster would tear a missile tank to shreds. Missile tanks, it was sweet knowing you but this is a nerf straight into the ground. Future meta or no, a proto missile tank simply wont do enough damage before either the rail or a blaster finishes it off. Its outclassed as AV rails and infantry AV by miles. Since its no good at being in the redline, mid range + long reloads + low damage, and soon to be low ROF there is very little incentive to use it at all anymore. Outclassed at every level. Its useless to play the tanker card. From my experience however, rails are being buffed far too much, missiles being nerfed far too much, and blasters look to be nerfed to shreds vs rails but should slaughter missiles tanks with ease. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.



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.