| 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) |
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
791
   |
Posted - 2015.01.29 05:01:00 -
[241] - Quote
^^^Shouldn't this conversation be in the HAV progression thread?
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4625
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 05:12:00 -
[242] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:^^^Shouldn't this conversation be in the HAV progression thread?
Sorta? It does specifically have to do with how turrets are supposed to operate, and because the HAV are are Turret-centric...
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2297
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 06:38:00 -
[243] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Harpyja wrote:
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.
I don't see how making an anti infantry HAV....weak to anti infantry....will make it good at anti infantry. It sounds like you're trying to nerf UHAVs in order to make DHAVs viable, rather than just making DHAVs sufficiently strong to counter them.
Well I didn't quite say that UHAVs needed be nerfed...
I think all that needs to change is the DHAV's defenses. I just see no reason why it should have a weaker defense than the UHAV. It already lacks two small turrets and a bonus to fighting infantry. I'd imagine a role bonus of 4% damage per level will put the DHAV nicely into its role, while keeping its defense on par with the UHAV.
Now, I want to somehow tie this into the topic of this thread to keep from getting off topic. I find it a bit odd that it would be possible to put a large railgun on a UHAV and a large blaster on a DHAV, assuming your turret assignments on the AI-AV spectrum.
While the DHAV could get its bonus as a damage bonus to its large turret to improve its AV capabilities, UHAVs should get a non-damage bonus to large turrets to make fighting against infantry easier.
For the large blaster turret, I think keeping its current dispersion will keep it more into an AV role on DHAVs (combined with the damage bonus), while the Gallente UHAV gets a dispersion reduction bonus that will allow it to fight better against infantry, fitting the UHAV's role.
And for the large missile launcher, the Caldari UHAV can provide a bonus to splash radius to make it easier to hit infantry. I'm wondering if keeping the current 1.5 meter splash radius will lean it towards the AV role on the DHAV and a 0.5 meter increase to splash radius per level on the Caldari UHAV will lean it more towards fighting infantry.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4628
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 07:01:00 -
[244] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Harpyja wrote:
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.
I don't see how making an anti infantry HAV....weak to anti infantry....will make it good at anti infantry. It sounds like you're trying to nerf UHAVs in order to make DHAVs viable, rather than just making DHAVs sufficiently strong to counter them. Well I didn't quite say that UHAVs needed be nerfed... I think all that needs to change is the DHAV's defenses. I just see no reason why it should have a weaker defense than the UHAV. It already lacks two small turrets and a bonus to fighting infantry. I'd imagine a role bonus of 4% damage per level will put the DHAV nicely into its role, while keeping its defense on par with the UHAV. Now, I want to somehow tie this into the topic of this thread to keep from getting off topic. I find it a bit odd that it would be possible to put a large railgun on a UHAV and a large blaster on a DHAV, assuming your turret assignments on the AI-AV spectrum. While the DHAV could get its bonus as a damage bonus to its large turret to improve its AV capabilities, UHAVs should get a non-damage bonus to large turrets to make fighting against infantry easier. For the large blaster turret, I think keeping its current dispersion will keep it more into an AV role on DHAVs (combined with the damage bonus), while the Gallente UHAV gets a dispersion reduction bonus that will allow it to fight better against infantry, fitting the UHAV's role. And for the large missile launcher, the Caldari UHAV can provide a bonus to splash radius to make it easier to hit infantry. I'm wondering if keeping the current 1.5 meter splash radius will lean it towards the AV role on the DHAV and a 0.5 meter increase to splash radius per level on the Caldari UHAV will lean it more towards fighting infantry.
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2596713#post2596713
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2750
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 08:14:00 -
[245] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
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?
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. 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.
You misunderstand. Remaining fuel would add to the damage that the rocket or missile can do, but once burned, it would lower the amount. That is a real thing. Put it like this: If I throw a rocket full of fuel with a tiny warhead, but it burns most of it's fuel trying to get to you, and then the opposite, but it burns all of its fuel trying to get to you, which will hurt more? Well, how powerful is the fuel, and how powerful is the warhead? Did the rocket pierce the target? etc.
I honestly don't care, I'm just saying that it does make sense to do it like that. Hell, you could say that the fuel is so weak that it doesn't make a difference between burning half of it off or all of it off.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2750
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 08:36:00 -
[246] - Quote
BLUB
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Thaddeus Reynolds
Facepunch Security
172
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 09:20:00 -
[247] - Quote
Link to Another Spreadsheet
Gathered up the stats from space-side turrets for reference to people working on ideas. I'll work on infantry portable weapons tomorrow (or later today depending on when I have time). I didn't include Space-Side Missiles, because their Damage Application works quite differently from that of the turrets (lack of tracking is the big one)
Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6835
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 10:53:00 -
[248] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Link to Another SpreadsheetGathered up the stats from space-side turrets for reference to people working on ideas. I'll work on infantry portable weapons tomorrow (or later today depending on when I have time). I didn't include Space-Side Missiles, because their Damage Application works quite differently from that of the turrets (lack of tracking is the big one)
Lemme know if you want help with the handhelds
AV
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6835
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 11:04:00 -
[249] - Quote
Allow me to put the missile falloff thing to bed Now.
Since someone is bringing a real life thing in I will explain why your logic is failing
fuel adding to payload only happens when firing said missiles at lightly armored targets. It is most useful for spreading "soft" munitions like napalm and shrapnel.
Armor penetration and anti-ship missiles utilize a shaped charge warhead with a two stage detonation.
The first stage breaches the armor on the hull and the secondary charge pushes through to detonate inside the target, causing overpressure and heat to liquefy and incinerate crew and eject tgeir reremains through the hole which is rarely larger than a man's fist. Because the fuel is behind the twin detonations it usually is destroyed and ejected outward to cause secondary damage outside. This is a drop in the bucket because the tank is already dead and antiship missiles can blow a cruiser in half with the charge alone.
Fuel has very little overall effect except in the case of fighter craft which are so fragile that a dime tossed into the intake can make the turbines explode. Missiles used to kill modern aircraft rairly strike directly, depending on the nearby airburst to tear tge bird apart with shrapnel and concussive force. THAT is where the fuel payload matters.
AV
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2753
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 21:19:00 -
[250] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Allow me to put the missile falloff thing to bed Now.
Since someone is bringing a real life thing in I will explain why your logic is failing
fuel adding to payload only happens when firing said missiles at lightly armored targets. It is most useful for spreading "soft" munitions like napalm and shrapnel.
Armor penetration and anti-ship missiles utilize a shaped charge warhead with a two stage detonation.
The first stage breaches the armor on the hull and the secondary charge pushes through to detonate inside the target, causing overpressure and heat to liquefy and incinerate crew and eject tgeir reremains through the hole which is rarely larger than a man's fist. Because the fuel is behind the twin detonations it usually is destroyed and ejected outward to cause secondary damage outside. This is a drop in the bucket because the tank is already dead and antiship missiles can blow a cruiser in half with the charge alone.
Fuel has very little overall effect except in the case of fighter craft which are so fragile that a dime tossed into the intake can make the turbines explode. Missiles used to kill modern aircraft rairly strike directly, depending on the nearby airburst to tear tge bird apart with shrapnel and concussive force. THAT is where the fuel payload matters.
I assumed that they weren't some sort of shaped charge due to how the explosion was shaped, could be wrong.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
Alena Ventrallis
Intara Direct Action
Caldari State
2495
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 22:28:00 -
[251] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
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?
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. 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. You misunderstand. Remaining fuel would add to the damage that the rocket or missile can do, but once burned, it would lower the amount. That is a real thing. Put it like this: If I throw a rocket full of fuel with a tiny warhead, but it burns most of it's fuel trying to get to you, and then the opposite, but it burns all of its fuel trying to get to you, which will hurt more? Well, how powerful is the fuel, and how powerful is the warhead? Did the rocket pierce the target? etc. I honestly don't care, I'm just saying that it does make sense to do it like that. Hell, you could say that the fuel is so weak that it doesn't make a difference between burning half of it off or all of it off.
Fuel DOES contribute to the explosion, but its contribution is negligible at best. Rocket fuel (modern) is very stable. When it catches fire, and it is hard for it to catch fire, it simply burns, it doesn't explode.
Imagine using a firecracker to set off c4. Yes, technically the firecracker DID add to the explosive power, but does it really count for much?
Listen to my muscle memory
Contemplate what I've been clinging to
Forty-six and two ahead of me
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4641
|
Posted - 2015.01.29 22:33:00 -
[252] - Quote
Let's not get on a Lore/Realism tangent about rocket fuel, it's kinda derailing the topic ^_^
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 19:56:00 -
[253] - Quote
You guys know how the assault scrambler rifle fires right? No noticeable recoil and has dispersion, but that dispersion doesn't increase the longer you fire.
My point is basically what I've said in post #98: Give the large blaster a bit more dispersion, but make that dispersion barely increase while being fired continuously.
That way it would be consistently hard to kill infantry with, continuous fire against vehicles would work at close-medium range like it should, and everyone will be happy.
Also if the DPS is too high and think the RoF increase was bad, and would indirectly make killing infantry easier, here's a compromise:
Change the fire interval to 0.12 (500 instead of proposed 600 RPM), so the raw alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6866
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:07:00 -
[254] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:You guys know how the assault scrambler rifle fires right? No noticeable recoil and has dispersion, but that dispersion doesn't increase the longer you fire. My point is basically what I've said in post #98: Give the large blaster a bit more dispersion, but make that dispersion barely increase while being fired continuously. That way it would be consistently hard to kill infantry with, continuous fire against vehicles would work at close-medium range like it should, and everyone will be happy. Also if the DPS is too high, think the RoF increase was bad, and would indirectly make killing infantry easier, here's a compromise: Change the fire interval to 0.12 (500 instead of 600 RPM), so the raw alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively.
Anything over 1000 DPS before skills will be HORRIFICALLY overpowered given the EHP counts we're actually looking at.
AV
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4666
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:11:00 -
[255] - Quote
Killing a tanked LAV is less than a second with a Blaster is just....not good. I want the Blasters to be good, but not a total rapefest.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6867
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:14:00 -
[256] - Quote
Alright I have some baseline stats laid out here. They assume that EHP for the main battle tanks will float around 10,000 EHP.
The heavy missile turrets are three different proposals to be looked at and weighed. I'm not sure which one works best.
Not one of the guns can break 1000 DPS before skills and damage mods.
This is twofold: To prevent HAVs from getting Instagibbed, and to help make balancing for shooting at infantry less obnoxious.
The less we have to balance one to compensate for being OP against the other the better.
Have a spreadsheet you evil bastards.
AV
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:15:00 -
[257] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:You guys know how the assault scrambler rifle fires right? No noticeable recoil and has dispersion, but that dispersion doesn't increase the longer you fire. My point is basically what I've said in post #98: Give the large blaster a bit more dispersion, but make that dispersion barely increase while being fired continuously. That way it would be consistently hard to kill infantry with, continuous fire against vehicles would work at close-medium range like it should, and everyone will be happy. Also if the DPS is too high, think the RoF increase was bad, and would indirectly make killing infantry easier, here's a compromise: Change the fire interval to 0.12 (500 instead of 600 RPM), so the raw alpha dps and damage to overheat would be 1,667dps and 1,820dmg respectively. Anything over 1000 DPS before skills will be HORRIFICALLY overpowered given the EHP counts we're actually looking at.
Like I said, it was a compromise.
In the defense of raising the DPS:
Currently the large blaster DPS is around 1000 and it sucks even at close range where it should shine. With the increased DPS, it would be a lot better, but because it would overheat faster and has less shots per clip, I feel like that would make it balanced.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6867
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:21:00 -
[258] - Quote
none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods.
AV
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:25:00 -
[259] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods.
Not even a large missile turret?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4666
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:26:00 -
[260] - Quote
Keep in mind that Breakin's numbers will be adjusted to match whatever the final HP ends up being for the vehicles. The important thing to take away from the sheet is "How do the turrets balance against each other?" The DPS can always be moved up or down to control Tank vs Tank TTK, but whats most important at this stage is how they perform against one another
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6867
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:28:00 -
[261] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret?
the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive.
AV
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:37:00 -
[262] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret? the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive.
You are avoiding the question and we all know it is excessive.
Also right now we have an underpowered 0.975k DPS large blaster, what do you suggest to fix it?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
4667
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:40:00 -
[263] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret? the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive. You are avoiding the question and we all know it is excessive. Also right now we have an underpowered 0.975k DPS large blaster, what do you suggest to fix it?
"Underpowered" is kinda relative to its strength compared to the other turrets, so its a matter of "Do you buff the blaster? Or nerf the Rail/Missile"? and that really comes down to how long you want the TTK to be.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6868
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:43:00 -
[264] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret? the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive. You are avoiding the question and we all know it is excessive. Also right now we have an underpowered 0.975k DPS large blaster, what do you suggest to fix it?
by dropping the DPS to match the meta of:
High alpha = low DPS
Midrange alpha = midrange DPS
Low alpha = high DPS.
the numbers I have worked out have the blaster turret between 750-850 DPS depending on the variant before skills or damage mods.
The rails are running around 650 right now, and missiles are the monkey in the middle at 750 DPS
All of them are still higher DPS than handheld AV I'm poking into shape.
these numbers assume that the main battle tanks average out around 10,000 EHP.
The numbers will adjust up or down according to the final HAV hull numbers easily because I like consistency.
AV
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:45:00 -
[265] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret? the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive. You are avoiding the question and we all know it is excessive. Also right now we have an underpowered 0.975k DPS large blaster, what do you suggest to fix it? "Underpowered" is kinda relative to its strength compared to the other turrets, so its a matter of "Do you buff the blaster? Or nerf the Rail/Missile"? and that really comes down to how long you want the TTK to be.
You are right and it's also relative towards LAV/Dropship/Tank HP.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:48:00 -
[266] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:none of the heavy turrets should be higher than 1000 DPS before skills and mods. Not even a large missile turret? the large missile turret burst DPS is BEYOND excessive. You are avoiding the question and we all know it is excessive. Also right now we have an underpowered 0.975k DPS large blaster, what do you suggest to fix it? by dropping the DPS to match the meta of: High alpha = low DPS Midrange alpha = midrange DPS Low alpha = high DPS. the numbers I have worked out have the blaster turret between 750-850 DPS depending on the variant before skills or damage mods. The rails are running around 650 right now, and missiles are the monkey in the middle at 750 DPS All of them are still higher DPS than handheld AV I'm poking into shape. these numbers assume that the main battle tanks average out around 10,000 EHP. The numbers will adjust up or down according to the final HAV hull numbers easily because I like consistency.
That actually looks good.
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:50:00 -
[267] - Quote
What do you guys thing about my solution to large blaster dispersion?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6869
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:54:00 -
[268] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:What do you guys thing about my solution to large blaster dispersion?
I'm actually deliberately rigging turrets so they aren't as overpowering versus infantry so we don't have to be as gun-shy about letting them HIT infantry
AV
|
The-Errorist
984
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 20:58:00 -
[269] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:What do you guys thing about my solution to large blaster dispersion? I'm actually deliberately rigging turrets so they aren't as overpowering versus infantry so we don't have to be as gun-shy about letting them HIT infantry
OK, and if you succeeded, would you want to keep the way dispersion is on large blasters or change it?
MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
|
Breakin Stuff
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
6870
|
Posted - 2015.01.30 21:00:00 -
[270] - Quote
The-Errorist wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The-Errorist wrote:What do you guys thing about my solution to large blaster dispersion? I'm actually deliberately rigging turrets so they aren't as overpowering versus infantry so we don't have to be as gun-shy about letting them HIT infantry OK, and if you succeeded, would you want to keep the way dispersion is on large blasters or change it?
I'm trying to push for not having the reticle on blasters be as overly large
That's going to have to be a "play it by ear" thing by necessity, so until we start shooting each other we're not going to know for sure.
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 |