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)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6802	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:44:00 - [151] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The breach forge takes 5 seconds to fire. Quit being disingenuous. . 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? Try again, Spkr. No one here is fooled by this slapdash crap, and I'm not stupid enough to get caught by such a FLAGRANT trap question I could expect from a third grader. You're being petulant at this point and it's really getting sad. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 679	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:47:00 - [152] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The breach forge takes 5 seconds to fire. Quit being disingenuous. . 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? No you ass it does 400 damage per second, as the Forgegun fires and cycles over the duration of 5 seconds, for a total alpha of 2000 damage. What about that do you not understand? 1. I have to say whenever i have used the BFG and looked at a vehicle while charging i cannot say i have done 400 damage to the target vehicle after 1 second of looking at the vehicle because i am charging the FG up and have yet to fire [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 679	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:48:00 - [153] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The breach forge takes 5 seconds to fire. Quit being disingenuous. . 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? Try again, Spkr. No one here is fooled by this slapdash crap, and I'm not stupid enough to get caught by such a FLAGRANT trap question I could expect from a third grader. You're being petulant at this point and it's really getting sad. 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2018	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:58:00 - [154] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: There is no "rational discussion" with people that insist on making vehicles useless when they don't use them. I've made two spreadsheets already. That's not constructive? Constant shitposting is never constructive, rattati told you that much in the other thread. Maybe he needed to use smaller words so you could understand. You are the one who is failing to uphold the basic rules of rational discussion here. You are also still treating it as an 'us vs them' issue, which really when it comes from you means "I am the only person who should ever get to provide any feedback on this topic. No one else should have a say". I'm pretty sure rattati also includes in his comments that he doesn't give a ** about any of your feedback as you're a biased little bigot that has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discuss things in good faith - non-verbatim of course. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2018	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:07:00 - [155] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: The breach forge takes 5 seconds to fire. Quit being disingenuous. . 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? Try again, Spkr. No one here is fooled by this slapdash crap, and I'm not stupid enough to get caught by such a FLAGRANT trap question I could expect from a third grader. You're being petulant at this point and it's really getting sad. 1. Does it do 400damage every second for 5seconds? Yes or no? Alpha strike divided by charge time equals damage per second. Or rate of fire multiplied by damage per shot equals damage per shot. Doing 10000 damage every 10 seconds is the same damage per second as doing 1000 damage every second or any number of other things. You have resorted to insane troll logic here to try and distract from the fact that you are wrong. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6807	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:10:00 - [156] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: There is no "rational discussion" with people that insist on making vehicles useless when they don't use them. I've made two spreadsheets already. That's not constructive? Constant shitposting is never constructive, rattati told you that much in the other thread. Maybe he needed to use smaller words so you could understand. You are the one who is failing to uphold the basic rules of rational discussion here. You are also still treating it as an 'us vs them' issue, which really when it comes from you means "I am the only person who should ever get to provide any feedback on this topic. No one else should have a say". I'm pretty sure rattati also includes in his comments that he doesn't give a **** about any of your feedback as you're a biased little bigot that has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discuss things in good faith - non-verbatim of course. Let's not forget that he altposts via lazer fo cused. Go check their posting history. compare habitual grammar, misspellings, punctuation, phrasing and general tone. Compare how the acerbic and borderline derogatory references to other players who prefer infantry play. Also compare that Lazer posts by hitting out a list, and spkr responds the exact same way, line by line, by posting within your quoted text. Then of course there's the perfect lockstep synergy of posting. They literally never disagree on ANYTHING in ANY way and are usually in the same threads backing each other and tag-teaming the same person within MINUTES of one another. this is someone utilizing an alt to derail topics and roadblock progress by enraging everyone to the point where they forget about what was being posted. There are also a few other tells they have, but I'm not giving away counterintelligence secrets. Have fun kids. AV
XxFRIJOLESxX MEXICAN BUFFET 71	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:17:00 - [157] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: There is no "rational discussion" with people that insist on making vehicles useless when they don't use them. I've made two spreadsheets already. That's not constructive? There is no rationalizing with someone as stupid as you. Are you doing this on purpose or do you have some sort of mental health condition? Carne Guisada special today. $6.99 w/ Free drink. includes 2 flour tortillas, beans , rice, salad, 2 cheese enchiladas
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 21349	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:17:00 - [158] - Quote Unless lazer is taka in which case they're joined at the hip anyway. Regardless, at least Rattati realises that Spkr is an idiot. #FreeHynox btw *Vote 'Keshava' for a new Gallente vehicle name!* Gallente Guide to DUST
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16834	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:18:00 - [159] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Unless lazer is taka in which case they're joined at the hip anyway. Regardless, at least Rattati realises that Spkr is an idiot. #FreeHynox btw They banned him? Poor guy......he just wrote trashy fan fiction.... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2443	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:21:00 - [160] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: There is no "rational discussion" with people that insist on making vehicles useless when they don't use them. I've made two spreadsheets already. That's not constructive? Constant shitposting is never constructive, rattati told you that much in the other thread. Maybe he needed to use smaller words so you could understand. You are the one who is failing to uphold the basic rules of rational discussion here. You are also still treating it as an 'us vs them' issue, which really when it comes from you means "I am the only person who should ever get to provide any feedback on this topic. No one else should have a say". I'm pretty sure rattati also includes in his comments that he doesn't give a **** about any of your feedback as you're a biased little bigot that has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discuss things in good faith - non-verbatim of course. Let's not forget that he altposts via lazer fo cused. Go check their posting history. compare habitual grammar, misspellings, punctuation, phrasing and general tone. Compare how the acerbic and borderline derogatory references to other players who prefer infantry play. Also compare that Lazer posts by hitting out a list, and spkr responds the exact same way, line by line, by posting within your quoted text. Then of course there's the perfect lockstep synergy of posting. They literally never disagree on ANYTHING in ANY way and are usually in the same threads backing each other and tag-teaming the same person within MINUTES of one another. this is someone utilizing an alt to derail topics and roadblock progress by enraging everyone to the point where they forget about what was being posted. There are also a few other tells they have, but I'm not giving away counterintelligence secrets. Have fun kids. Trust me, Lazer is Takahiro. They're in lockstep because they're in lockstep. I stopped drinking the koolaid long ago, Spkr never did. Compare old posts from Takahiro to posts from Lazer. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6808	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:27:00 - [161] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Trust me, Lazer is Takahiro. They're in lockstep because they're in lockstep. I stopped drinking the koolaid long ago, Spkr never did. Compare old posts from Takahiro to posts from Lazer. Just looked. No similarities except the formatting. checking the other tells now via my spies. Edit: Negative. Takahiro fails everything but formatting comparisons, and doesn't have nearly the level of arrogant posting lazer indulges in. Not only that but his posting doesn't have a similar tone or tempo. Takahiro may have drank the koolaid at one point or another, but unless he picked up a serious case of crazy, not the same guy. AV
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2443	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:31:00 - [162] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Trust me, Lazer is Takahiro. They're in lockstep because they're in lockstep. I stopped drinking the koolaid long ago, Spkr never did. Compare old posts from Takahiro to posts from Lazer. Just looked. No similarities except the formatting. checking the other tells now via my spies. Edit: Negative. Takahiro fails everything but formatting comparisons, and doesn't have nearly the level of arrogant posting lazer indulges in. Not only that but his posting doesn't have a similar tone or tempo. Takahiro may have drank the koolaid at one point or another, but unless he picked up a serious case of crazy, not the same guy. Trust me, they're one and the same. He did catch a case of the crazy. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1610	Posted - 2015.01.27 20:55:00 - [163] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: It would be balanced if said AP blaster HAV was rather defenseless against AV HAVs. Just like AV infantry pose a threat to vehicles but are vulnerable to other infantry, the blaster HAV should pose a threat to infantry while being vulnerable to other vehicles. It just a simple mirrored balance. Well as I've said before I don't have an issue with Large Blasters being the most proficient of the Large Turrets at killing infantry, and the weakest AV turret overall. However small turrets still need to outperform it in terms of AP, and underperfom against it in general in terms of AV. Do you ever ask yourself why? Why does a Large Turret have to be AV, why does small turret have to be AI? Why? It's like saying the SMG is suppose to be AI and CR suppose to be AV? Small Blaster is just a smaller version of Large Blaster. If it was to be AV, I rather have a gallantean Plasma Cannon like Turret that has charge up and bullet drop ECT. If there was a Large Projectile Turret (Minmatar) and it was a huge version of a Combat Rifle, I would expect it to have pretty much the same role, kill infantry. It's a blaster turret. It's a auto-cannon, it works like an auto-cannon, it should preform like an auto-cannon. No way in hell is a Blaster Turret suppose to be AV. When the game first came out, CCP Blam! intended that thing to be AP because it had terrible AV capabilities. Railgun was AV because it obviously had no business killing Infantry. Missiles were middle ground. P.S. What the fk is the point of a Large Turret if you can't kill infantry with it? It's not like they are useful breaking down walls like in BF4. There is no point in driving a tank if you cannot even kill infantry. If you see a tank, you might aswell just continue being infantry because it's not like they are getting 20+ kills a match like me in a Militia Heavy and HMG. I don't know what Rattati is thinking but he's abusing his power. There was obviously things set in place by previous devs and he's rewriting the system. It's like changing the logo of Apple after Steve Jobs died. You just don't change stuff that has worked for years. Except for 1.7 when Blasters were OP AF up to the dispersion nerf. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2739	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:02:00 - [164] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: It would be balanced if said AP blaster HAV was rather defenseless against AV HAVs. Just like AV infantry pose a threat to vehicles but are vulnerable to other infantry, the blaster HAV should pose a threat to infantry while being vulnerable to other vehicles. It just a simple mirrored balance. Well as I've said before I don't have an issue with Large Blasters being the most proficient of the Large Turrets at killing infantry, and the weakest AV turret overall. However small turrets still need to outperform it in terms of AP, and underperfom against it in general in terms of AV. Being in general the worst large turret for AV is a terrible idea. They should be similarly cumbersome for use against infantry. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:11:00 - [165] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: It would be balanced if said AP blaster HAV was rather defenseless against AV HAVs. Just like AV infantry pose a threat to vehicles but are vulnerable to other infantry, the blaster HAV should pose a threat to infantry while being vulnerable to other vehicles. It just a simple mirrored balance. Well as I've said before I don't have an issue with Large Blasters being the most proficient of the Large Turrets at killing infantry, and the weakest AV turret overall. However small turrets still need to outperform it in terms of AP, and underperfom against it in general in terms of AV. Being in general the worst large turret for AV is a terrible idea. They should be similarly cumbersome for use against infantry. Mostly worst due to its limited range. Up close it should still dominate the other two, but because its small operational range its going to struggle as AV in a lot of cases. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4588	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:17:00 - [166] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: I don't know what Rattati is thinking but he's abusing his power. There was obviously things set in place by previous devs and he's rewriting the system. It's like changing the logo of Apple after Steve Jobs died. You just don't change stuff that has worked for years. Except for 1.7 when Blasters were OP AF up to the dispersion nerf. Lol abusing his power? You speak like this is supposed to be a democracy. Blamm couldn't even figure out which direction was up on a turret, I'm not going to simply go off his misguided vision for the sake of precedent. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6810	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:19:00 - [167] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: I don't know what Rattati is thinking but he's abusing his power. There was obviously things set in place by previous devs and he's rewriting the system. It's like changing the logo of Apple after Steve Jobs died. You just don't change stuff that has worked for years. Except for 1.7 when Blasters were OP AF up to the dispersion nerf. Lol abusing his power? You speak like this is supposed to be a democracy. Blamm couldn't even figure out which direction was up on a turret, I'm not going to simply go off his misguided vision for the sake of precedent. Quit being nice pokey. Vitriolic badposts deserve no mercy. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2739	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:27:00 - [168] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: It would be balanced if said AP blaster HAV was rather defenseless against AV HAVs. Just like AV infantry pose a threat to vehicles but are vulnerable to other infantry, the blaster HAV should pose a threat to infantry while being vulnerable to other vehicles. It just a simple mirrored balance. Well as I've said before I don't have an issue with Large Blasters being the most proficient of the Large Turrets at killing infantry, and the weakest AV turret overall. However small turrets still need to outperform it in terms of AP, and underperfom against it in general in terms of AV. Being in general the worst large turret for AV is a terrible idea. They should be similarly cumbersome for use against infantry. Mostly worst due to its limited range. Up close it should still dominate the other two, but because its small operational range its going to struggle as AV in a lot of cases. Oh, that's what you mean by worst. Okay. Well, that's really relative to the geography of the map. Lots of hills and such and lots of cover like the newer maps would be much better for blasters to work in compared to say a rail (but if indirect artys were a thing, I could see where you're coming from). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4589	Posted - 2015.01.27 21:40:00 - [169] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Oh, that's what you mean by worst. Okay. Well, that's really relative to the geography of the map. Lots of hills and such and lots of cover like the newer maps would be much better for blasters to work in compared to say a rail (but if indirect artys were a thing, I could see where you're coming from). Yeah its worst in a situational sense. Railguns having a massive range lets them apply damage in a wide array of situations, but would get pounded up close with a blaster. So Rails would be "the best AV" in most situations, but still falter in some situations where other turrets excel. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:23:00 - [170] - Quote Still not convinced rapid firing turrets are the right way to go for tank combat but we'll see what happens with the feed back from this thread. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4590	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:25:00 - [171] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Still not convinced rapid firing turrets are the right way to go for tank combat but we'll see what happens with the feed back from this thread. I'd prefer bursts of damage for large turrets, not the high fire rate that we have now. Either the shotgun idea or the multi-PLC shot idea. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 291	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:29:00 - [172] - Quote I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:36:00 - [173] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Still not convinced rapid firing turrets are the right way to go for tank combat but we'll see what happens with the feed back from this thread. I'd prefer bursts of damage for large turrets, not the high fire rate that we have now. Either the shotgun idea or the multi-PLC shot idea. I've been attempting to rationalise the various applications of the Shotgun Hybrid Charge, its functionality, etc. It's probably one of the more interesting designs for a weapon I've heard of, especially when you consider the the magazine fed autoloader we talked about a while back. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:39:00 - [174] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Not necessarily. I think all Large Turrets should have an anti infantry capacity but more in the sense of AoE splash damage and direct hit damage or coaxial small turrets rather than large turret designs that are spray and pray and don't make sense from the perspective (anti vehicle) that they are trying to be shoehorned into. ...... like the Large Blaster. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6814	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:41:00 - [175] - Quote check the link in my sig. I put a tab for heavy missile turrets. the stats in red are for my counterproposal to the current turrets. They are intended for AV and suppression and area saturation of munitions. The TL;DR for those who don't understand Rattati spreadsheets: The missile turret functions more like an MLRS. I recommend the use of the swarm missile animation for maximum fun explosion visuals and missile trails. the HAV carries 300 missiles in the magazine for 30 volleys of 10 missiles before reloading. Each missile does 75 damage direct. each missile has a 1m splash for 25 damage. total alpha per volley is 750 refire delay is 1 second. Missiles should be FASTER than the current heavy missiles Intended to be medium range/medium DPS AV and infantry suppression platform. It should be both destructive and visually intimidating enough to make the rats scatter. Dispersion should not be narrow enough to hit a dropsuit with more than a couple per volley directly. It should not be wide enough that it resembles a damn shotgun scatter. It needs to be able to hit an HAV at between 75-150m consistently. Have fun. This is hardly my only turret concept. this represents a prototype turret. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4591	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:42:00 - [176] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4591	Posted - 2015.01.27 22:47:00 - [177] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: check the link in my sig. I put a tab for heavy missile turrets. the stats in red are for my counterproposal to the current turrets. They are intended for AV and suppression and area saturation of munitions. The TL;DR for those who don't understand Rattati spreadsheets: The missile turret functions more like an MLRS. I recommend the use of the swarm missile animation for maximum fun explosion visuals and missile trails. the HAV carries 300 missiles in the magazine for 30 volleys of 10 missiles before reloading. Each missile does 75 damage direct. each missile has a 1m splash for 25 damage. total alpha per volley is 750 refire delay is 1 second. Missiles should be FASTER than the current heavy missiles Intended to be medium range/medium DPS AV and infantry suppression platform. It should be both destructive and visually intimidating enough to make the rats scatter. Dispersion should not be narrow enough to hit a dropsuit with more than a couple per volley directly. It should not be wide enough that it resembles a damn shotgun scatter. It needs to be able to hit an HAV at between 75-150m consistently. Have fun. This is hardly my only turret concept. this represents a prototype turret. Quantity of Rockets over Quality. Well it would look freaking awesome, that's for sure. My obvious concern is how it performs against infantry but that's something that would have to be play tested and can't really be determined via the numbers. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1611	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:00:00 - [178] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality. What are we suppose to do, fight those tanks that nobody spawns in? Destroy turrets for WP? Destroy Supply depots? AV solo tanks, tanks can't solo AV infantry. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4591	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:04:00 - [179] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality. What are we suppose to do, fight those tanks that nobody spawns in? Destroy turrets for WP? Destroy Supply depots? AV solo tanks, tanks can't solo AV infantry. You're supposed to play as a team. Those small turrets are not there just to look pretty, put people behind them. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16839	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:08:00 - [180] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: I'm fairly certain the AV infantry community convinced the devs to make the large blaster an AV weapon using fuzzy logic. Apparently the only purpose of calling in an HAV was supposed to be to battle other vehicles and to themselves be hunted by AV infantry. It got to the point that most posts about vehicles were AV infantry in shock that a tank didn't pop with one clip of swarms and demanding someway to freeze an HAV so they can reload a few times. But to stay on topic, the large blaster seems to blue shield infantry for the first half of a burst and your best bet is to keep aiming for that random headshot. Bunny hoppping heavies with breach forges are near impossible to hit from 20m let alone when they are 100m up on a rooftop. It is sad that it is better for a pilot to jump out of a blaster tank to kill av infantry jumping around thier vehicle. Or just have a gunner on the small turret deal with the infantry like they're supposed to? Or have infantry on the ground around you to protect you? In fact the purpose of the UHAV is specifically to hunt down and kill infantry with its small turret bonuses while the large turret helps suppress and defend against larger targets. As a general rule, a vehicle should always struggle to deal with infantry AV if they're running solo. Always. Otherwise you're just encouraging the AV community to push for the "Well if 1 guy in a tank can slaughter infantry easily, 1 AVer should be able to take out the tank by himself" mentality. What are we suppose to do, fight those tanks that nobody spawns in? Destroy turrets for WP? Destroy Supply depots? AV solo tanks, tanks can't solo AV infantry. You're supposed to play as a team. Those small turrets are not there just to look pretty, put people behind them. Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."



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