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 |