Not that bad if the refire rate is decent. I mean hitting a large target like an HAV from 30m would be easy as hell, infantry tricky but doable with a handful of shots.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

I don't think you understand what we're getting at. Simply put, we're saying that how the blaster itself works is not favorable as a Large turret, and we're asking for a restructure of some kind, and the going ideas are shotgun turret or PLC turret, or some variation between the two. True is saying PLC or tri shot shotgun, Pokey is saying he gets why all works, but (I think) wants the shotgun turret. I personally want the shotgun turret to be it due to it working far better by design in CQ, especially on moving targets and while moving (which keeps other HAV's from hitting you, a good thing for a CQC brawler).

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

Railgun: If railguns are supposed to be AV only, then they need to be better at it than the other turrets. If blasters are just as good as rails at AV with AI capability besides, then what's the point of running it?

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

Many Tankers manually fire the missiles alone.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

Why do you not split the turrets, large that is, into 2 types? One with AV functionality and one with AI functionality. This has always perplexed me. Why is this not a viable strategy to balancing tanks. It would seem to me that it would give tanks a place among themselves to be on the battlefield. AI tank pinning you down, pull out the AV turret, or the AV infantry.

The numbers in Rattatis proposal have the large blaster doing double dps, with a smaller clip, about 50% more damage per shot and slightly more heat build up. Controlled bursts are going to be amazing so don't worry about the shotgun model.

Because Rails have 300m range and Blasters have like....30-40m? The same principle applies to infantry weapons, where the Plasma Rifle has better DPS than the Rail Rifle. The Railgun will be better AV in far more situations than a Blaster will, so overall its a better choice.

EDIT: Also agree. Missiles with falloff doesn't make sense, they should do full damage up to their point of self detonation. I'd also love to see them be more effective at longer ranges so the DPS can be brought down to more reasonable levels.

This thread is becoming fairly derailed.

The purpose is to balance the Blaster, Missile and Rail, as they are, within the the known constraints. Designing plasmacannon turrets belongs in another thread, and is perfectly fine.

Blaster is Heavy Autocannon, CQC AV with AI capabilities, especially with a new active dispersion mod in high and active heat reduction mod

Rail is long range AV, meant to be not as powerful as it is for allcomers.

Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button.

My question to you is, why would anyone ever have small turrets? Under your model it would make sense that Large AP turrets would be innately better than Small AP turrets, right?. Would it not make more sense to just run 3 solo tanks together, rather than put the 3 pilots in the same tank at that point, since 3 Large AP Turrets > 1 Large + 2 Small AP turrets?

If you think about the fact that fuel is added into missile strength calculations irl depending on the type, it really does make sense, but depending on how smart our warheads are, and how strong the fuel is would decide that.

We could go with man ways to go about it: Stronger fuel and weaker warhead, which has a stronger close range and a high travel speed, but ****** at range (accelerated rockets?), vice versa for slower but less of a dropoff, maybe weaker (normal), etc.

That makes no sense. Fuel has nothing to do with the payload of a missile (ie: the part that goes boom) I could MAYBE understand the missiles slowing down as the run out of fuel, but reduced damage? Unless some complete moron decided to use the payload as fuel (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA) Then missile damage should be consistent at 0m and at max range.

This, and why would there be a big ass turret for a small ass target?

Because bigger turret means bigger boom against smaller target.

All kidding aside, it isn't that simple to say that 3 large turrets are better than one plus two smalls. You have to consider many other things other than just pure damage. For one, three HAVs are much more expensive to operate simultaneously as opposed to one HAV and two gunners. Second, three HAVs uses up a larger portion of the team vehicle limit. It is also much easier to maneuver around, engage, and escape with just one HAV as opposed to three. The three HAVs have to stick together to be powerful, and one on its own is weaker than a HAV with two gunners. This now brings me to the point that the small turrets do not have to be AI like the large turret. Two AV small turrets plus the AI large turret should be able to rival a HAV with one AV large turret.

Both methods have advantages, but I see the three simultaneous HAVs much more difficult to coordinate. It proved difficult enough back when Uprising was released to have two HAVs spider tanking each other and move around together as a single unit to keep the reps active.

Also, going back to my comment on using small turrets with the opposite role of your large turret is more advantageous, as it allows your primary focus to be what your large turret is and through teamwork, you can level the playing field against the other role, unless if your opponent is specialized in that role (3 AV turrets > 1 AV large + 2 AI small)

Because bigger turret means bigger boom against smaller target.

All kidding aside, it isn't that simple to say that 3 large turrets are better than one plus two smalls. You have to consider many other things other than just pure damage. For one, three HAVs are much more expensive to operate simultaneously as opposed to one HAV and two gunners. Second, three HAVs uses up a larger portion of the team vehicle limit. It is also much easier to maneuver around, engage, and escape with just one HAV as opposed to three. The three HAVs have to stick together to be powerful, and one on its own is weaker than a HAV with two gunners. This now brings me to the point that the small turrets do not have to be AI like the large turret. Two AV small turrets plus the AI large turret should be able to rival a HAV with one AV large turret.

Both methods have advantages, but I see the three simultaneous HAVs much more difficult to coordinate. It proved difficult enough back when Uprising was released to have two HAVs spider tanking each other and move around together as a single unit to keep the reps active.

Also, going back to my comment on using small turrets with the opposite role of your large turret is more advantageous, as it allows your primary focus to be what your large turret is and through teamwork, you can level the playing field against the other role, unless if your opponent is specialized in that role (3 AV turrets > 1 AV large + 2 AI small)

This, and why would there be a big ass turret for a small ass target?

Ok ok. Let's see if we can find a compromise.

The key thing I'm trying to hammer in is
1. Small Turrets will always be better at killing infantry than Large Turrets
2. Large Turrets will always be better at killing vehicles than Small Turrets

Going off the principle I outlined before of a gradient scale *in a general sense* of Most AP centric gradually transitioning into most AV centric. In this example Small Turrets still maintain superiority in terms of AP over Large Turrets, and Large Turrets maintain AV superiority over smalls. However there are two 'sets' of each turret size, one more AV centric and the other more AP centric. In this case the AV Compressed Small Rail would have a similar level of performance compared to the AP Stabilized Large Blaster, in being both equally effective against infantry and vehicles. As you move up or down the scale, things become increasingly more polarized.

Most AP Centric

(Stabilized Small Blaster) Tight Cone - Higher Fire Rate - Less Damage/Shot
(Fragmented Small Missile) Wider Splash Radius - Higher Fire Rate - Less Direct Damage
(Cycled Small Rail) Higher Fire Rate - Less Heat Buildup - Lower Damage/Shot

[Scattered Small Blaster] Wide Cone - Lower Fire Rate - Higher Damage/Shot
[Packed Small Missile] Tighter Splash Radius - Lower Fire Rate - More Direct Damage
[Compressed Small Rail] Lower Fire Rate - More Heat Buildup - Higher Damage/Shot

(Stabilized Large Blaster) Tight Cone - Higher Fire Rate - Less Damage/Shot
(Fragmented Large Missile) Wider Splash Radius - Higher Fire Rate - Less Direct Damage
(Cycled Large Rail) Higher Fire Rate - Less Heat Buildup - Lower Damage/Shot

[Scattered Large Blaster] Wide Cone - Lower Fire Rate - Higher Damage/Shot
[Packed Large Missile] Tighter Splash Radius - Lower Fire Rate - More Direct Damage
[Compressed Large Rail] Lower Fire Rate - More Heat Buildup - Higher Damage/Shot

Most AV Centric

Heres my general thought process, because I don't think I'm expressing it clearly.

Typically the AV community feels "If an HAV can easily kill me, I should be able to easily kill it. A 1 to 1 ratio." And while I don't completely agree, their though process has some merit to it. That being said I don't particularly like the idea that in 1 AV can easily take out my big fat ass, then 2 will completely wreck me....this doesn't sound very fun.

Instead if you make it so a Solo tanker struggles to kill infantry by himself, then conversely, the solo infantry AV would also struggle to kill the tanker. By make it more of a requirement for tankers to carry a gunner for the small turret, now it takes 2 people to easily kill infantry (Driver and Gunner) and you can more safely say that it takes 2 AVers to easily kill an HAV.

This seems like it would be more enjoyable. Does that make sense?

Except that Rattati wants to go in the complete opposite direction with UHAVs and DHAVs...

How so? UHAVs get bonuses specifically to small turrets to make them designed to fight infantry. DHAVs don't get small turrets and are designed specifically to NOT fight infantry, and instead focus on AV.

This is in line with my statement that multiple people are needed to effectively fight against infantry, and solo players are focused specifically on AV. It pushes the effect to a greater extreme with the bonuses and how the base attributes are set up.

UHAVs are slow and cumbersome and more susceptible to enemy vehicles, but are able to dispatch infantry AV quickly with its powerful small turrets.

DHAVs are weak and fast, more susceptible to infantry AV with little ways to counter them, but can quickly outflank and outdamage UHAVs with its powerful large turret.

Why should an AV focused vehicle be more susceptible to infantry AV than an AI focused vehicle? The UHAV will be a much more considerable threat to infantry, yet it will boast the higher defenses.

I think that the proper tradeoff should be that you give up defense for AI. Your best defense against infantry AV should be your offense. An AV focused vehicle can't fight back against infantry AV as efficiently, so it should rely on its defenses to pull out instead.

I already tried to discuss this in the other thread but it didn't seem like it caught any attention, so I'll just quickly summarize it here:

The DHAV will need an incredible damage bonus to beat the UHAV's defense, otherwise the UHAV will use its better defense to level the playing field against a DHAV. Any combat between DHAVs will result in the very swift annihilation of one them. I fear that DHAVs will be too weak and not fun to use, and UHAVs will be the king of all HAVs.