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)
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:28:00 - [91] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Tell me, if light weapons are AP like Combat Rifle with DPS of 600. Isn't it on to have a combat rifle like side arm (SMG) with lower DPS as a secondary? Anyway, false, they were good but not OP. HMG has more DPS than a blaster turret, hell even a ScR had more DPS than a blaster turret. Not to mention that the good Proto Blaster turret used to be 1 million frekin isk compared to HMG that was 47k isk. The range was good and expected from a large Turret. It was good in close quarters and was viable in medium range up up to about 50-60m. You really can't make a direct comparison with sidearms because they're intended as a backup weapon, whereas small turrets are meant to be operated by another player in conjunction with the main pilot. I mean sure a pilot can swap to an empty small turret but that would be like saying "You can swap to your sidearm but now you can't move". Such a direct comparison doesn't work. You're also trying to compare an HMG/Scrambler Rifle (an infantry weapon) to a large turret (a vehicle weapon). If I'm on foot and someone comes at me with a scrambler rifle, I have an option to shoot back and possibly kill him before he kills me. If the enemy is using a Large Blaster, I have to have a specific type of weapon if I want to retaliate, and at any appreciable range I have to have my main weapon be an AV weapon if I want to fight back. You're comparing apples and oranges. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2737	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:39:00 - [92] - Quote Since it was completely passed over: "Blasters and missiles needs fixing. Blasters are not what people see as "Large turrets". They don't even match what blasters are; high DPS in a short range relative to everything else. As I have said numerous times, as have others (Pokey, Thaddeus, and to some extent Breakin and even True) wants blasters to change into a hard hitting shotgun turret, that has the highest DPS (not the lowest, which is what rails should be), but lowest range (it should have one of if not the lowest optimal's, but a spread to where hitting infantry at any decent ranges will be tricky, but hitting vehicles will be somewhat easy). This will make it into the proper large turret that it should be. As for missiles, they aren't missiles, they are OP rockets. Missiles I do agree need to come in, as I think mostly everyone agrees on. As for what I think they should be, they should be a semi-auto launcher that has a high alpha per missile, similar to the rail, but the differences being it has a higher damage per shot, but slower projectile, but it has either a guiding feature, a passive tracking for each missile, or some sort of similar homing feature. They would also have a slightly larger splash due to having a slower flying projectile. Rockets needs to be balanced to not out DPS blasters, and pretty much anything else that could come into existence. Rather, they need to be a similar ROF, and a higher splash, along with a better reload and a shotgun-like reloading system (imo, all turrets should have this, hell even some infantry weapons should too), it's damage (both direct and splash) gets reduced." click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 416	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:43:00 - [93] - 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. Any way to put a large blaster on a Incubus? The small blaster is hard to kill anything and its av use not to good. Third person Turrent reticle is not were the first person view is. And I think the first person view is the only one that has a shot at killing anything
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2737	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:49:00 - [94] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: 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. Any way to put a large blaster on a Incubus? The small blaster is hard to kill anything and its av use not to good. Third person Turrent reticle is not were the first person view is. And I think the first person view is the only one that has a shot at killing anything **** no. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2013	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:03:00 - [95] - Quote So we LBX-10 the blaster turret? Changing it from a high RoF 'precision' weapon into vehicular shotgun turret? I can get behind this. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6784	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:22:00 - [96] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: So we LBX-10 the blaster turret? Changing it from a high RoF 'precision' weapon into vehicular shotgun turret? I can get behind this. that's a thought. Honestly I thought the PLC projectile shotgun was not a bad idea. 3-4 projectiles, 500 damage apiece, decent splash spread. I think it's doable. With a slower rate of fire (not as slow as the godawful PLC reload/charge cycle) it could be an excellent close range platform without being overwhelming to an asinine degree. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:22:00 - [97] - Quote Luther Mandrix wrote: 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. Any way to put a large blaster on a Incubus? The small blaster is hard to kill anything and its av use not to good. Third person Turrent reticle is not were the first person view is. And I think the first person view is the only one that has a shot at killing anything Or just make Small Blasters perform better? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
The-Errorist 972	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:40:00 - [98] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds 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 also think that the 2k DPS is a bit excessive on blasters compared to the 967 on rails. Blasters should be about 20-30% more DPS than rails, not 100% more imo...my reasoning is a combination of space-side blasters vs rails, but also a ratio greater than current infantry based weaponry (albeit slightly increased). If you're going to keep Large "Missile" Turret Salvo functionality, I think you're on the right track...particularly if you make armor hardeners worth fitting (See posts in the bring back initiative threads on having both Standard and Flux hardener for both shields and armor). Are you flat out opposed to changing how the current turrets work? (I.E.: No PLC or Shotgun Blaster)? Or are you saving discussion of that for once you get solid DPS and other Statistics numbers down? You should also factor in how much more damage it does before it overheats before you decide if it's too much. It'll do 3.6k more damage before overheat and with that combined info, it does sound like too much of a buff. In defense of the increased RoF Will it make it much better at being AI? No, no directly; the high starting dispersion and how much each shot increases it would make the increased RoF harder to hit infantry, unless you do even shorter controlled bursts than required now. It would be a lot better If the fire interval was 0.12 (500 instead of proposed 600 RPM), so the alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively. But wont it wreck infantry more effectively and with its increased damge/rof? If you make the dispersion higher AND make it so that continuous fire barely increase dispersion, it would have a consistency to its inaccuracy (like aSCR spread), but accurate enough to do its job as an AV turret. Rattiti, can't you just make a Large PLC turret using the large blaster? Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote "... The only way I see to keep missiles competitive is to give them slight passive tracking abilities against vehicles. Meaning, each missile will automatically guide itself with limited capabilities to the vehicle closest to where the user is aiming (maybe a slight redesign of the reticle to show this target area where missiles will passively track vehicles). This is to allow the large missile turret to be usable at longer ranges (since currently if you've ever used one you'll know that it's only effective up to about 100 meters) and be able to apply the only thing that makes it good: its alpha DPS." I agree. For a turret which sports (I believe) 300m range...good luck hitting anything that's moving at 300m. I think if you make Missiles more viable at medium to long range, either by some passive tracking or higher missile velocity, you can afford to tone down its DPS to a more reasonable level so you're not instablapping Madrugars. Currently, as you stated, Missiles are restricted to be a short to medium range weapon which I don't think was the intention, nor is it really in line with EVE standards of missiles being fairly long range within their size class. I would love a bit of passive tracking to make my rocket launcher a missile launcher or just an increase to its projectile speed. MINA Longstrike wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: they where designed to be a hard counter to armor, and i always assumed that laser turrets would be OP vs shields whenever they come out Hard counters are terrible design. Soft counters are much nicer. Essentially it goes 'ha stupid idiot, you brought out something that wasn't the meta, hope you like dying!'. It turns it into a contest of stats rather than a contest of skill. You are exaggerating the effects of having weapons with specialized damage profiles (laser and explosive). MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
The-Errorist 972	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:41:00 - [99] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Have you seen the insane proposed PG/CPU stats for the Gallente tanks? They'll be able to fit almost everything. Here's some example fits: PRO tank: 3822 PG & 1093 CPU All proto Large Blaster 2 Small Railguns Blaster dmg mods Fuel Injector Armor Hardener 120mm plate Heavy rep Leftover: 960 PG and 213 CPU. ADV tank: 3227 PG & 930 CPU Same as above Leftover: 50PG and 365 CPU. STD tank: 3070 PG & 901 CPU Same as above Leftover: 208PG and 21 CPU. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16818	Posted - 2015.01.26 22:49:00 - [100] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Rattati- Don't reduce missiles ammo- it is unnecessary nerf and no need for it. Also the Blaster should fire slower but do more damage per shot. When I think of Tank Large Cannons, I think of slow firing high damage type of round. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdL1SvuR1EA Watch Level caps turret. (the main one) That is what the large blaster should be like. The small blaster better suits high RPM like a mini gun. That's not a tank gun and I suggested something like this a couple of weeks ago which you spat on. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7979	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:22:00 - [101] - Quote The Design Thoughts on Blaster is that "Blaster dps is only constrained by heat" but with the proposed changes, it very quickly becomes Heat, enemy regeneration, range, and Reload. My concern is that with the short magazine size you're going to want to be reloading -constantly- if you want to be ready for what is around the corner and an 8 second reload is pretty harsh considering that you only have enough ammunition for 7.5 seconds of fire, as well as 6 seconds of cool-down 2/3rds into the magazine. Honestly, I'd say to ditch the heat mechanics all together in that case because there's really not much you can do with that last 1/3 of the clip, apart from kill infantry or really lightly tanked vehicles. To elaborate: Let's say a player just holds down the trigger until he overheats (we'll factor in dispersion later since Blasters are the only ones that have to deal with this). That means that he can fire continuously for five (5) seconds before he overheats, which takes roughly 6 seconds to cool-down to firing capability (during which the enemy is capable of damage recovery) where he will then only have twenty-five (25) rounds to fire out or about 2.5 seconds of fire for 5000 damage, which may or may not be enough to kill a target that has recovered HP in that duration (due to modules/progression). All while having to stay within range of the target. EDIT: So it's basically... Fire (5s) Cool-down (6s) Fire (2.5s) Reload (8). ADDITIONAL EDIT: I got the above wrong, because firing capability during cool-down is only half of the magazine, so you'd overheat -AGAIN- once you fired the remaining rounds in the magazine. So it's actually: -----> Fire (5s) Cool-down (6s) Fire (2.5s) Cool-down (6) Reload (8). That's -A LOT- going on all once in the heat of a battle and I think it's a bit too much against the Blaster. This isn't touching up on range/dispersion which are also a factor that Missiles and Railguns don't really have to deal with as much. The higher rate of fire also gives a bit more leeway toward anti-infantry purposes and the higher damage rounds mean that less have to hit, so it's a pretty significant buff toward Anti-Infantry play but then again so is the Railgun's buff to splash. But again, this is just an amateur tankers opinion. Take it at face value. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15803	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:24:00 - [102] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Have you seen the insane proposed PG/CPU stats for the Gallente tanks? They'll be able to fit almost everything. Here's some example fits: (Used Protofits for used PG/CPU with max fitting skills) PRO tank: 3822 PG & 1093 CPU All proto Large Blaster 2 Small Railguns Blaster dmg mods Fuel Injector Armor Hardener 120mm plate Heavy rep Leftover: 960 PG and 213 CPU. ADV tank: 3227 PG & 930 CPU Same as above Leftover: 365 PG and 50 CPU. STD tank: 3070 PG & 901 CPU Same as above Leftover: 208PG and 21 CPU. It's not proposed till it's proposed. Until then it's just numbers on a spreadsheet. The intent is a narrow full protofit of not the most expensive mods with all fitting skills. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15803	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:26:00 - [103] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: The Design Thoughts on Blaster is that "Blaster dps is only constrained by heat" but with the proposed changes, it very quickly becomes Heat, enemy regeneration, range, and Reload. My concern is that with the short magazine size you're going to want to be reloading -constantly- if you want to be ready for what is around the corner and an 8 second reload is pretty harsh considering that you only have enough ammunition for 7.5 seconds of fire, as well as 6 seconds of cool-down 2/3rds into the magazine. Honestly, I'd say to ditch the heat mechanics all together in that case because there's really not much you can do with that last 1/3 of the clip, apart from kill infantry or really lightly tanked vehicles. To elaborate: Let's say a player just holds down the trigger until he overheats (we'll factor in dispersion later since Blasters are the only ones that have to deal with this). That means that he can fire continuously for five (5) seconds before he overheats, which takes roughly 6 seconds to cool-down to firing capability (during which the enemy is capable of damage recovery) where he will then only have twenty-five (25) rounds to fire out or about 2.5 seconds of fire for 5000 damage, which may or may not be enough to kill a target that has recovered HP in that duration (due to modules/progression). All while having to stay within range of the target. EDIT: So it's basically... Fire (5s) Cool-down (6s) Fire (2.5s) Reload (8). That's -A LOT- going on all once in the heat of a battle and I think it's a bit too much against the Blaster. This isn't touching up on range/dispersion which are also a factor that Missiles and Railguns don't really have to deal with as much. The higher rate of fire also gives a bit more leeway toward anti-infantry purposes and the higher damage rounds mean that less have to hit, so it's a pretty significant buff toward Anti-Infantry play but then again so is the Railgun's buff to splash. But again, this is just an amateur tankers opinion. Take it at face value. Maybe the Blaster won't be competitive on a MBT, and shine on a DHAV. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 198	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:32:00 - [104] - Quote I would be happy if the Large Missile launcher fired 3 times slower than it does now, but with greatly increased velocity. Everything else can stay the same, IMO. Thus, you lose insta-gank ability with the 1/3rd DPS but now it's much easier to hit targets out at mid-long range, which is what Missiles are supposed to be used for. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7979	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:32:00 - [105] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Maybe the Blaster won't be competitive on a MBT, and shine on a DHAV. See additional edit in that post, if necessary. Perhaps. It could be an interesting twist to have it shine on the DHAV, which might fair a bit better as far as balance due to it having lower HP values. But it'd -REALLY- have to shine considering that it's intended target (UHAVs) would have 'massive' HP. Although, with the Vayu's slow turret tracking speed, it could be a little rough considering that it might out-turn it's own tracking speed, but that's a conversation for actual progression. IMO, DHAV should get a heat reduction and/or faster reload speed on the Large Blaster respective to it's intended hull. That way it can hammer out large amounts of damage without having to worry so much about reloading, cooling down, etc. while having to manage around range, tracking, and dispersion. Sniper range nerf did nothing but make it harder to counter-snipe redliners. That and open up for really stupid feedback
The-Errorist 973	Posted - 2015.01.26 23:54:00 - [106] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: ... ... It's not proposed till it's proposed. Until then it's just numbers on a spreadsheet. The intent is a narrow full protofit of not the most expensive mods with all fitting skills. Ok, I also noticed I used the derived instead of other and fixed it on my post MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
Major IMPACT Dead Man's Game RUST415 77	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:34:00 - [107] - Quote Would be cool to see a variant of a railgun that keeps firing, even after over heating. But after overheating, it does 20% damage to its own, and the DMG decrease by a 15% each time or something like that --or-- The turret would be super heated that it has a chance to actually break the turret itself, so recalling it is the only option. Still waiting for the tanks to be reintroduced
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1601	Posted - 2015.01.27 01:55:00 - [108] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Tell me, if light weapons are AP like Combat Rifle with DPS of 600. Isn't it on to have a combat rifle like side arm (SMG) with lower DPS as a secondary? Anyway, false, they were good but not OP. HMG has more DPS than a blaster turret, hell even a ScR had more DPS than a blaster turret. Not to mention that the good Proto Blaster turret used to be 1 million frekin isk compared to HMG that was 47k isk. The range was good and expected from a large Turret. It was good in close quarters and was viable in medium range up up to about 50-60m. You really can't make a direct comparison with sidearms because they're intended as a backup weapon, whereas small turrets are meant to be operated by another player in conjunction with the main pilot. I mean sure a pilot can swap to an empty small turret but that would be like saying "You can swap to your sidearm but now you can't move". Such a direct comparison doesn't work. You're also trying to compare an HMG/Scrambler Rifle (an infantry weapon) to a large turret (a vehicle weapon). If I'm on foot and someone comes at me with a scrambler rifle, I have an option to shoot back and possibly kill him before he kills me. If the enemy is using a Large Blaster, I have to have a specific type of weapon if I want to retaliate, and at any appreciable range I have to have my main weapon be an AV weapon if I want to fight back. You're comparing apples and oranges. What if somebody is firing at you with a ScR from 60m away and all you are wielding is nova knives and a flaylock? Can't fight back can you? This is the same as if a blaster tank is getting shot at by forges from 200-300m away. He can't fight back. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2492	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:16:00 - [109] - Quote How about instead of a raw buff to pg/CPU for vehicles, why not give the vehicle electronics/engineering skill to increase pg/CPU? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2492	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:19:00 - [110] - Quote As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2288	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:37:00 - [111] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1601	Posted - 2015.01.27 02:42:00 - [112] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun I wish blasters were like pre 1.7.. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15825	Posted - 2015.01.27 04:06:00 - [113] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun And make long range always better? I disagree. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2290	Posted - 2015.01.27 05:58:00 - [114] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun And make long range always better? I disagree. I suppose that the general idea is that the longer the range, the worse the AI capability. It kind of makes sense too, that an AI HAV should be engaging infantry right in the thick of things as opposed to sniping them from afar. I also see range as being the better option when engaging another vehicle. You can start off by having all of the large turrets have equal AV capabilities within CQC, so as to avoid making the longer ranged weapon always the better one at any given range, and then the only thing that makes a turret "better" at AV is having a higher engagement range. This seems to be an appropriate way to balance out AI and AV capabilities. You don't have to necessarily give up AV damage for AI capabilities, but you give up the range at which you can engage another vehicle. Otherwise, if all three turrets had equal AI capabilities, then AV power should definitely scale with optimal range. I personally find the former environment more interesting though. Creates the necessary escalation and skilled pilots can level the playing field if they are fighting an opponent with a better range by trying to engage them within close quarters. I hope that what I said makes sense as it is currently midnight my time and I'm rather tired. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2014	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:21:00 - [115] - Quote I think the currently 'proposed' blaster will end up being something that harvests maximum tears from infantry if it functions identically to the variant we have in game. By changing to to be a shotgun style turret you can make it so its still 'technically' able to shoot infantry, but it isn't ultra-hyper lethal to them as only a few pellets would hit, as opposed to shooting at vehicles where all pellets are likely to hit. If we were to give it a RPM of 100 (one round every .6s) that's only marginally faster than current shotguns (.7s repeat) and it would allow for 1200 damage (still hitting 2000dps) @ 8 pellets its 150/pellet or @ 10 it's 120/pellet. I'd suggest having spread that's roughly installation sized @ 130m and half that @ 65m. This should make it still be threatening to infantry but prevent the fun ruining blaster tanks of 1.7 from making a return and it keeps the large turret far more oriented towards av than ai. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2828	Posted - 2015.01.27 07:28:00 - [116] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6790	Posted - 2015.01.27 08:41:00 - [117] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2738	Posted - 2015.01.27 09:33:00 - [118] - Quote Harpyja wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun And make long range always better? I disagree. Otherwise, if all three turrets had equal AI capabilities, then AV power should definitely scale with optimal range. As it should be. A big ass turret shouldn't be made to take on tiny ass people, especially when that leads to what we have now, with some HAV's not being as good as others with a blaster by design, which is just silly. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2738	Posted - 2015.01.27 09:35:00 - [119] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I think the currently 'proposed' blaster will end up being something that harvests maximum tears from infantry if it functions identically to the variant we have in game. By changing to to be a shotgun style turret you can make it so its still 'technically' able to shoot infantry, but it isn't ultra-hyper lethal to them as only a few pellets would hit, as opposed to shooting at vehicles where all pellets are likely to hit. If we were to give it a RPM of 100 (one round every .6s) that's only marginally faster than current shotguns (.7s repeat) and it would allow for 1200 damage (still hitting 2000dps) @ 8 pellets its 150/pellet or @ 10 it's 120/pellet. I'd suggest having spread that's roughly installation sized @ 130m and half that @ 65m. This should make it still be threatening to infantry but prevent the fun ruining blaster tanks of 1.7 from making a return and it keeps the large turret far more oriented towards av than ai. I'd shorten up those ranges by a lot. Blasters shouldn't be sitting THAT far back. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6790	Posted - 2015.01.27 09:51:00 - [120] - Quote I have an alternative sesign idea for the heavy missile turret. Can the swarm missile effects be rendered rapidly without slogging the server? Assume that the "follow up target" scripts are not being used. Pure dumbfire. I have an idea that is potentially both solidly destructive, can be used on infantry and is visually cool. It sort of combines the MLRS idea with a helicopter rocket pod on a slightly larger scale. I just need to figure out what the DPS and fire rates might be. It wouldn't have to do nearly as much DPS as it does now to be effective at midrange HAV combat. 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.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris