| 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) |
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2312
   |
Posted - 2015.02.07 16:01:00 -
[391] - Quote
I'm just looking at the proposed large missile turret and it just doesn't feel right. It's being nerfed way too hard.
The large blaster and railgun will simply outperform it in every aspect. The large blaster has about 10% more DPS, does more damage than one full missile clip up to its overheat, and its cooldown I presume is much shorter than the 12 second reload time for the large missile. Plus it has the greatest reliability against infantry of the large turrets.
The large railgun has around 10% less DPS, but deals even more damage than the large blaster until overheat, and again I presume that the large railgun will have a cooldown time that's much shorter than 12 second. Plus, the railgun has greater accuracy and a much faster projectile speed than the large missile.
So where does this put the large missile turret? Absolutely nowhere. It lost its high DPS so it can't maximize damage done against another vehicle before hardeners come online, considering it had the smallest damage per clip it was necessary for it to deal as much damage as quickly as possible. Now it's even worse with a reduced damage per clip and increased reload time. It will take the large missile turret a full 18 seconds to deal the same amount of damage a large blaster does in about 6 seconds to overheat, and 20 seconds to do the same damage a large railgun deals in about 8 seconds to overheat.
I hope I'm not the only one seeing this. Something needs to change about the proposed large missile turret. I see three options. 1) give it a fair amount of more DPS than the large blaster so it can maximize the damage dealt against a vehicle with such a small clip size. 2) increase clip size or damage per missile so that one full clip deals between 8k-10k damage, since the large railgun deals that much damage to overheat but has a quicker reload speed. 3) Decrease reload time significantly, like down to 4 seconds or something, so that it can compete with the other turrets in damage versus time.
Edit: one last thing I forgot to add: max ammo. Giving each large turret the same amount of full clips is not the way to go. Each large turret should have around the same damage per max ammo. I see no reason why the large railgun can deal almost 5 times as much damage without needing a supply depot.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2882
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 16:16:00 -
[392] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing.
Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. It was good before 1.8. and it died in a fire like it needed to.
Spoken by someone that has never used a vehicle.
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
241
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 16:18:00 -
[393] - Quote
Very much agree with the post above. With this proposal, Large Missiles will be sh!t. You won't be able to kill any tank besides MLT or Base stat tanks in one mag, then you have the terribad reload time, as well as the fact that the railguns will be getting MORE ammo when they don't ever even need to go to a supply depot now unless they destroy every installation on the map as well as a few vehicles. In general, missiles are going to be needed to hell and I disagree with that very much
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
DarthJT5
Random Gunz
RISE of LEGION
243
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 16:21:00 -
[394] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing.
Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. It was good before 1.8. and it died in a fire like it needed to. Spoken by someone that has never used a vehicle.
Spkr. Triple rep Madrugars were literally invulnerable to EVERY form of AV on the field unless people were sending 3-4 Proto swarmers or forgers at you. The only thing that could kill them in a 1v1 was a 100% accurate missile barrage to the weak spot, and even then they could nitro away and get all their health back in 8 seconds. You believe this was balanced?
Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta.
Up and coming Python pilot.
The awnser is always XT missiles....
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 16:54:00 -
[395] - Quote
Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current.
Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs.
UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer.
Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2313
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:01:00 -
[396] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current.
Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs.
UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer.
Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV.
But so will the large blaster benefit from a 25% damage bonus. Anyways, there's an entire discussion in the other thread about DHAVs and UHAVs and what needs to change from the current proposal. Turret balance should be independent from hull balance.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:04:00 -
[397] - Quote
@ Sorry to double post, but i also noticed that you have current small rails listed as 12 shots to overheat.
Its only 12 shots to over heat on a double pilot stacked Rail incubus.
On a Tank its 7 - 8 shots to over heat. Will log in to double check. I'm used to firing 5 round bursts from my Inc when i use the small rail.
It certainly isn't 12 shots base.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
820
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 17:06:00 -
[398] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current.
Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs.
UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer.
Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV. But so will the large blaster benefit from a 25% damage bonus. Anyways, there's an entire discussion in the other thread about DHAVs and UHAVs and what needs to change from the current proposal. Turret balance should be independent from hull balance.
I agree that turret and tank balance need to be independent. Just deriving Rattaties ideas on turret balance seem to be directly tied to bonuses planed for the tanks. Thats the only reason i'm bringin the tanks discussion here.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
226
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 18:25:00 -
[399] - Quote
Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash.
Speed it up, or leave it alone.
"Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
226
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 18:27:00 -
[400] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:@ Sorry to double post, but i also noticed that you have current small rails listed as 12 shots to overheat.
Its only 12 shots to over heat on a double pilot stacked Rail incubus.
On a Tank its 7 - 8 shots to over heat. Will log in to double check. I'm used to firing 5 round bursts from my Inc when i use the small rail.
It certainly isn't 12 shots base.
Seventh shot will overheat. Have to single shot-3 round burst to manage heat as it is.
"Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4782
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 18:44:00 -
[401] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash.
Speed it up, or leave it alone.
I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck?
Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7015
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 20:00:00 -
[402] - Quote
one thing I think should be kept in mind is the higher the RoF it seems the WORSE hit detection gets in my experience.
Accelerating the blaster might not be a great idea.
AV
|
The-Errorist
1022
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 21:02:00 -
[403] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:one thing I think should be kept in mind is the higher the RoF it seems the WORSE hit detection gets in my experience.
Accelerating the blaster might not be a great idea.
Yeah and I remember how the breach AR was the only good weapon in closed beta because of this.
My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos
Racial tanks
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1425
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 22:41:00 -
[404] - Quote
Are there any updates to the main document? Mine has some divide by Zero failures.
Are there any plans to do a similar genocidal nerf on small turrets?
Are there any dates or release numbers associated with this effort? I thought there were going to be new tanks (old tanks, whatever) but my last login revealed nothing.
I haven't run any vehicle since early September. The nerfs and various changes took most of the fun out of them for me. And the assault drop ship got it worse with the hammering of the small turrets when combined with invisible AV (yet to be fixed). Flying was the last thing I was doing to pry some fun from the cold dead grip of CCP.
What I am lurking about now is this thread regarding significantly nerfing large turrets. The heavy heat build up in rail guns is actually quite funny when the gun will empty a clip by itself, regardless of heat. Previously you could build up two overheats with a clip or a clip and a half. Not that the turret would actually stop firing when it overheated itself.
The large blaster meant you had to shoot it much like the now useless Tactical Assault Rifles (lvl 5 assault rifle). Only quick bursts as everything else is just spewing wasted rounds. Yet that turret is going to get even worse as well.
And missile tanks will become useless once again, if you can get your turrets to fire. Actually all three turret types suffer the same basic dysfunctions.
What fun!
Is there any plan at all for chasing down this obvious client/server network communication bug? Specifically the turrets firing themselves, emptying their now limited supplies, or simply not working at all?
Because that is the major reason I am just watching. If the weapons actually work then adjusting to the Nerf/Buff cycle that CCP is so enthralled with might be manageable. But if they never fix the main bug affecting turrets, I hardly see the point of yet another Nerf cycle.
Whatever, Good Luck Dusters.
My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7017
|
Posted - 2015.02.07 23:13:00 -
[405] - Quote
^
Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled. 
AV
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2846
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 00:54:00 -
[406] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled.
lol
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1426
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:04:00 -
[407] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled.
What? Which lesson was I teaching?
I am still interested in Dust. Just wondering what the latest changes are working but the Nerf to large turrets is a concern. Of course I might have logged in bug my DS3 controller just bit the ... dirt. Hardly works well enough to play a DVD and navigating Dust menus was way too much trouble for the little thing (always headed left which exits many selections).
My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2846
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:35:00 -
[408] - Quote
KalOfTheRathi wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled. What? Which lesson was I teaching? I am still interested in Dust. Just wondering what the latest changes are working but the Nerf to large turrets is a concern. Of course I might have logged in bug my DS3 controller just bit the ... dirt. Hardly works well enough to play a DVD and navigating Dust menus was way too much trouble for the little thing (always headed left which exits many selections).
Scarcasm is not your strong suit I see.
There is a thing called a balance pass. This is what that is. Turrets in 1.7 were insta gank things, and those are going away.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
KalOfTheRathi
Nec Tributis
1426
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 01:52:00 -
[409] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Scarcasm is not your strong suit I see.
There is a thing called a balance pass. This is what that is. Turrets in 1.7 were insta gank things, and those are going away.
Okay, cool.
Sarcasm is something I am actually good at but I have been slapped by CCP for using that particular skill set here.
It wasn't clear to me this is a balance pass, or intended to be such. The numbers looked like a Nerf with the large heat changes. And I really would like to have turrets that fired when I pressed the button, and only then. But that is just me. As a retired software engineer I get picky about the basics working.
Anyway, thanks for the response. Breakin Stuff was probably out beating a dead horse somewhere.
My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
226
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 04:00:00 -
[410] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Devadander wrote:Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash.
Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it.
Sorry if you felt like you were being called out. Must be a chip on your shoulder.
I know Godin was one of few tankers on my level back in the old days, but pretty sure he was rail. I've seen spkr in a tank a lot but never blaster, mostly rails, sometimes missiles. I see breakin stuff breakin stuff a lot, but that's on foot lol.
(but he also admits he is pure foot action)
I'm a blaster tanker. Ask around.
I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP)
If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls.
Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes?
Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean.
TL;DR
I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing.
Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry.
Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion.
"Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
|
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4828
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 04:55:00 -
[411] - Quote
Devadander wrote:
I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP)
If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls.
Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes?
Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean.
TL;DR
I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing.
Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry.
Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion.
Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium.
Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7019
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 11:40:00 -
[412] - Quote
Pokey's had to put up with spkr's snide comments one time too many in the HAV threads denigrating his character.
Please make an effort to separate your statements from the riffraff.
I'd complain about him denigrating mine, but I'm content to point and laugh at him in turn so it works out.
AV
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
2890
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 15:26:00 -
[413] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Pokey's had to put up with spkr's snide comments one time too many in the HAV threads denigrating his character.
Please make an effort to separate your statements from the riffraff.
I'd complain about him denigrating mine, but I'm content to point and laugh at him in turn so it works out.
How many times do I have to say that I'm commenting about the ideas, not the person?
Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
|
Tebu Gan
Capital Acquisitions LLC
Bad Intention
1262
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 16:06:00 -
[414] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Devadander wrote:
I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP)
If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls.
Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes?
Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean.
TL;DR
I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing.
Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry.
Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion.
Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium. Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering. EDIT: Also hardly a guilt thing, but people have been slinging around the "Oh you must not know what you're talking about" bull. I suppose the main difference is that I don't run tanks constantly, I use them situationally when I feel there is a need then I recall it when I'm done. So if there is a tank that needs to be dealt with or a dropship causing issues, I'll call the tank in, kill them, then recall it. In general I use HAVs as AV platforms anyways, so the number of player kills I get with them is pretty low since I typically am ignoring infantry.
I've been playing the blaster a bit more of late. It's decent V vs V. With a standard blaster (impossible to do better on my maddie) I tend to hold my own against certain fits, coming out on top many times.
Though as a few have mentioned, and now something I've seen for myself, a double hardened gunnlogi will out perform it. There just isn't a possibility to break through that regen. I think addressing that with a blaster would make it perform much better in a close encounter with another tank.
Blaster fire should at the very least, PAUSE SHIELD REGEN.
I have found I hate more than anything encountering double hardened gunnlogis with a blaster when I KNOW I should hold a large advantage given my turret rotation and bonus damage against shields. I SHOULD hold an advantage, not necessarily translating into a win, but an advantage if these things are used correctly.
As it is, blaster fire is stonewalled against that which it should be strong against, shields, double hardened or not.
But to offer my suggestion, a decrease to RoF and an increase to damage per shot, should allow it to punch through the shield regen. A lower RoF would also decrease the dispersion build up slightly I assume, making it a little easier with infantry, but a huge difference against larger targets at range.
I think the blaster is set at 150M range but in reality you need to be within 50 - 75 meters to cause any noticeable damage to large targets largely due to the horrible dispersion.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
313
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 17:21:00 -
[415] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Devadander wrote:
I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP)
If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls.
Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes?
Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean.
TL;DR
I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing.
Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry.
Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion.
Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium. Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering. EDIT: Also hardly a guilt thing, but people have been slinging around the "Oh you must not know what you're talking about" bull. I suppose the main difference is that I don't run tanks constantly, I use them situationally when I feel there is a need then I recall it when I'm done. So if there is a tank that needs to be dealt with or a dropship causing issues, I'll call the tank in, kill them, then recall it. In general I use HAVs as AV platforms anyways, so the number of player kills I get with them is pretty low since I typically am ignoring infantry. I've been playing the blaster a bit more of late. It's decent V vs V. With a standard blaster (impossible to do better on my maddie) I tend to hold my own against certain fits, coming out on top many times. Though as a few have mentioned, and now something I've seen for myself, a double hardened gunnlogi will out perform it. There just isn't a possibility to break through that regen. I think addressing that with a blaster would make it perform much better in a close encounter with another tank. Blaster fire should at the very least, PAUSE SHIELD REGEN. I have found I hate more than anything encountering double hardened gunnlogis with a blaster when I KNOW I should hold a large advantage given my turret rotation and bonus damage against shields. I SHOULD hold an advantage, not necessarily translating into a win, but an advantage if these things are used correctly. As it is, blaster fire is stonewalled against that which it should be strong against, shields, double hardened or not.But to offer my suggestion, a decrease to RoF and an increase to damage per shot, should allow it to punch through the shield regen. A lower RoF would also decrease the dispersion build up slightly I assume, making it a little easier with infantry, but a huge difference against larger targets at range. I think the blaster is set at 150M range but in reality you need to be within 50 - 75 meters to cause any noticeable damage to large targets largely due to the horrible dispersion.
If you see a gunlogi hit his hardners he will be paper thin in a little over 20 seconds. Depending on engagement Maddie with nitro will have an easy time.
With fittings being fixed I am guessing an ion blaster would do more shredding, especially with dam mod. |
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2847
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 17:27:00 -
[416] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Devadander wrote:Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash.
Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it. Sorry if you felt like you were being called out. Must be a chip on your shoulder. I know Godin was one of few tankers on my level back in the old days, but pretty sure he was rail. I've seen spkr in a tank a lot but never blaster, mostly rails, sometimes missiles. I see breakin stuff breakin stuff a lot, but that's on foot lol. (but he also admits he is pure foot action)
I've used all turrets since day 1, mostly blaster.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2315
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 17:34:00 -
[417] - Quote
I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post.
Link
-First graph: Damage Over Time
*This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s.
There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph.
However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt.
-Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time
The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time.
-Third graph: CPU Vs PG
Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun.
-My suggestions:
I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change.
I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph.
Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4846
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 17:44:00 -
[418] - Quote
Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
313
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 19:23:00 -
[419] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect.
Or don't use a basic blaster fit. |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4849
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 19:30:00 -
[420] - Quote
Doc DDD wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit.
To be fair, different tiered blasters should simply do more or less damage than each other, and specific tiers should not functionally work differently because their damage is too low compared to the shield threshold.
It would be similar if a STD Plasma Rifle didn't stop enemy Shield recharge but an ADV did, the disadvantage between tiers should simply be damage, not functionality.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |