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)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:30:00 - [1] - Quote Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Silver Strike44 463	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:34:00 - [2] - Quote First My YouTube Channel
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 166	Posted - 2015.01.26 07:39:00 - [3] - Quote I've always been more in favor of a Shotgun or PLC style Blaster Turret (currently have shotgun style in my HAV spreadsheet). Shotgun style should spread it's damage out over an area approx the size of a 50% dilated Large Blaster Turret reticule at about 50-60meters if that's the way to go with it. Railgun could benefit from being slowed down in terms of RoF, while increasing its Damage (Reducing overall DPS by approx 20% should do the trick). Add a bit of splash damage and radius to give it a bit of a chance at fighting back AV infantry (Low ROF should prevent it from being too powerful provided proper consideration for splash damage amount is taken into account.) Large "Missile" Turrets are a bid harder to tackle, because I like the way they're set up currently...but I'd change them to a burst fire weapon, reduce reload speed or modify how the skill affects it (I think you saw talk about how the SP investment for Missile Turret Rapid reload wasn't worth it at all)...missile speed needs to be increased base for it to be very useful as a medium range weapon (out of curiosity, what is the current projectile speed on both the missile turret and the rail turret?) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Evan Gotabor Prima Gallicus 135	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:15:00 - [4] - Quote While you are taking a look at the large turrets, is it possible for you to rebalance the large turrets of installations ? Especially the large blaster installation. Prima Gallicus diplomat Eve 21 day Trial
Brush Master Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1404	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:19:00 - [5] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. [/url] If you are focusing on tank rebalance, I would suggest sticking to large turrets, once you touch small turrets your are greatly effecting dropships. I do not believe small turrets are currently a big factor in tanking. I assume by your description that you are reintroducing Small Fragmented for the purpose of dropships to use with larger splash radius but reduced alpha damage. If the current small missile is to become AV what does the railgun become? as stated in the past, railguns were AV, small was hybrid and blaster was infantry. Right now, the most viable turret that most every dropship will be a missile due to range, damage and tracking. Gunners simple have a hard time hitting someone and have a short time to get a kill, thus missile. Dropships can not stay put long enough in most games for blasters and rails to work effectively. Just looking at my games over the past week, gunners ranged from 4-10 kills with either an adv or proto missile in a standard defensive built dropship. Please use caution if you touch small turrets. Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ? True Logi. Flying DS from the start. @dustreports
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 924	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:40:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. [...] Please discuss. I'm going to discuss the AV turret's primary purpose, if I may. I kind of like the model of "rail is AV, missile hybrid and blaster AI" that we used to have since Dust's inception. This ties HAVs into the escalation of a match nicely. Deploy blaster to suppress or kill infantry, use rail to scare off blaster. Deploy missile if you don't want to commit. I assume your comment towards fragmented missile launchers hints at an attempt to make variants of turrets for AV and AI purposes. Please skip the next paragraph if I'm wrong in that assertion. In the meantime I'd like to comment that, if this disparity is too strong, this is rather unintuitive design. As a vehicle player I can see from 300 meters out whether the HAV I'm attacking has a blaster, missile or rail turret and can thus conclude its purpose. If there are AV and AI variants of the turrets that actually change the purpose of what the turrets do then I won't know until A) it has started shooting at me or B) it pops up on the killfeed and I'm lucky enough that no two HAVs with the same turret type are on the field. Neither of these sound like fun. And it has the potential to get worse from the perspective of infantry. Thus I'd like to suggest to keep the designed roles of the turrets like they used to be. But please go ahead and make variants of the turrets that make them slightly lean towards the AV or AI function within their design space. Much like before the old variants were removed.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:41:00 - [7] - Quote Believe it or not smalls need a checkup. Not a nerf though. Small rails are ineffectual for the most part, small blblasters are borderline worthless. Small missiles, however, are not in a bad place. They work well on a dropship. The only real problem is the projectiles spawn in bizarre places with screwy flight paths when fired from moving ground vehicles. AV
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 169	Posted - 2015.01.26 08:59:00 - [8] - Quote You should also check collision detection in general and for missiles particularly. One time I got shot with my own missile in a still dropship (gunner seat). <[^_^]>
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:01:00 - [9] - Quote Is it possible that we'll also see some semblance of racial parity from this too? Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:11:00 - [10] - Quote First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:12:00 - [11] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Is it possible that we'll also see some semblance of racial parity from this too? If no one else does I'm already theorycrafting large turrets for racial parity. Once we have the hulls finalized and the turrets we have redone all I have to do is math. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:20:00 - [12] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Is it possible that we'll also see some semblance of racial parity from this too? If no one else does I'm already theorycrafting large turrets for racial parity. Once we have the hulls finalized and the turrets we have redone all I have to do is math. I can maybe spitball some ideas for how different turrets might function, potentially with video examples if that would help your theorycrafting any. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:28:00 - [13] - Quote For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:30:00 - [14] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. Heat capacaity is 100 for all weapons, in the game, that I know of. Better to play with heat per shot rather than mess with that. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:34:00 - [15] - Quote 100 for maximum heat is a good number, makes total sense. Made an edit to previous post about lengthening missile 'volley' duration from 1.5s (10 shots @ .15s / shot) to 2.4 seconds (10 shots @ .24s / shot). Less punishing to miss individual shots and less instant-deathy. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15762	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:36:00 - [16] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I'm not great with how certain numbers would affect balance, but jumping missiles from 1.5 seconds (proposed) for full volley to 2.4 maybe? I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. I believe a healthy increase to Railgun fitting, will make it more of a glasscannon. But you cant just compare the 3 shots, the applied dps is much reduced, due to heat f.ex. Take a special look at the columns marked as KPI, they coincide with the "best to worst" design philosophy below. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:37:00 - [17] - Quote IMO blaster should have a great difference through level, a basic/militia blaster cant kill everyone as before but at the same time ion and ADV blaster should get more accurancy, maybe through sharpsooter skill or something like that The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 184	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:40:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo I would not increase the rail heat buildup unless you plan on bringing back a active module to really help out with that. Blaster sucks vs tank and past 30 meters worthless vs. intelligent infantry. >.<

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15763	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [19] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo I would not increase the rail heat buildup unless you plan on bringing back a active module to really help out with that. Blaster sucks vs tank and past 30 meters worthless vs. intelligent infantry. Reasons? And are you referring to the proposal? Did you read the numbers? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo I agree, be careful on heat per shot for railgun, atm is 4 shot and overheat, you can deal a great amountvof damage but nt enough for destroy a installation The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2003	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [21] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I'm not great with how certain numbers would affect balance, but jumping missiles from 1.5 seconds (proposed) for full volley to 2.4 maybe? I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. I believe a healthy increase to Railgun fitting, will make it more of a glasscannon. But you cant just compare the 3 shots, the applied dps is much reduced, due to heat f.ex. Take a special look at the columns marked as KPI, they coincide with the "best to worst" design philosophy below. My experience in current tank vs tank is that rail tanks frequently have enough EHP that they can survive blaster or missile fire long enough even with their slow RoF that they can easily win vs other tanks. Especially when you factor in things like damage mods. Fitting cost increases to rail might be appropriate, but I still forsee a lot S.H.A.V's with a large rail making other vehicles lives miserable. Peakaboo gameplay is something I witness frequently with current particle cannon tanks. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 924	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:42:00 - [22] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet There's an issue with rail turret overheat. The current one overheats after 4 rounds, your spreadsheet has that as 7. Not being an expert here, but total heat produced is probably something like (HeatPerSecond * FireInterval + HeatPerShot) * Number of shots fired. That would put a current railgun at 100.8 heat after 4 shots, which is where it currently overheats (41.48+4*14 = 100.8). As per your proposal that would put the new railgun at 2.5 shots to overheat, thus 3 rounds. Where we had 6784 hp damage until overheat we would now be at 5655 hp after the third shot.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:44:00 - [23] - Quote Can you make missile blast radius 2m and rail blast radius 1.5m? Missiles should have the larger blast radius as they should be more effective than rails against infantry but less so than blasters

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15763	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:44:00 - [24] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet There's an issue with rail turret overheat. The current one overheats after 4 rounds, your spreadsheet has that as 7. Not being an expert here, but total heat produced is probably something like (HeatPerSecond * FireInterval + HeatPerShot) * Number of shots fired. That would put a current railgun at 100.8 heat after 4 shots, which is where it currently overheats (41.48+4*14 = 100.8). As per your proposal that would put the new railgun at 2.5 shots to overheat, thus 3 rounds. Where we had 6784 hp damage until overheat we would now be at 5655 hp after the third shot. looking into it "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Nao Kun Nyain San 7	Posted - 2015.01.26 09:45:00 - [25] - Quote I hope Large Blaster Turret Clip 150~180 from 75 and blaster scattering, same from 'fixed blaster turret'? (japanglish sry) I love Madrugar.
Cat Merc Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 14663	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:06:00 - [26] - Quote Can we get range in the weapon metrics too? I don't remember what the ranges are, and would like to compare. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6756	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:30:00 - [27] - Quote Alright I looked at your initial there. My first thought is that, unless you intend for EHP capaccapacityi to be based off the current Gunnlogi these turrets for AV will cause nosebleedingly short fights. 2000 DPS is mind-numbingly short duration. Currently the only turret that breaks 1000 DPS by any significant margin is the missile turret. For basic purposes, until you have the hulls locked down, that you make turret DPS step up rather than have one sub-1000 DPS cannon then two above 2000. Right now, without finalized hull average EHP I can only base these numbers off what we have now. My assesment In the aforementioned vacuum is that I think missiles need their rate of fire dropped and their velocity stepped up. There really should be no need for a fragmented version with a low splash damage hit with a moderate radius to represent collateral damage from a large shaped charge. In today's climate I'd recommend high alpha for rails around 1750 alpha and an overall base DPS of 700-750, a bit ahead of handheld AV. I would recommend setying missiles to a base 800-850 which would require a more sustained fire pattern than instablap barrage. And I would recommend setting blasblastersres to 900-950 DPS and tweak upward based on your finalized hulls. It will be easier to step the weapons up or down as needed en masse if we set up a baseline Rather than having to play guessing games with each one. If we start here, then it's easier to balance them so they can be used on infantry without being overpowering or needing special modules to tighten the dispersion. My two cents. Hope it helps. AV
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3830	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:53:00 - [28] - Quote Glad to see large rail AoE coming back, we will be able to destroy equipments and finish targets on low health. About the heat and precision of the blaster, i remeber damage mod which also increased the ROF, i was using them on a gunnlogi, the turret had a very improved ROF and precision, but heat build up was insane, only a heat sink could slow down it and the tank was rather fragile. That was balanced imho, that tank was designed to slay infantry as fast as i could without missing shots, but it wasn't very good for tank vs tank. So even if i have problem judging numbers without see actual in-game effects, i think that increase blaster heat build up is a good thing, if you want to make it more precise. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:54:00 - [29] - Quote Splah damage for particle accelerator and particle cannon? Not a huge one but just enough to 2-shot ak0 sentinels without a doible hit ( useless comment) The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6760	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:57:00 - [30] - Quote I should probably post my reasoning here: Infantry AAV and large turrets pretty much have the same function. I believe that the turrets should be more advantageous for killing tanks though, so I believe keeping their overall DPS ahead of infantry AV is the way to go But not by a vast margin. Both have the same TTK issue. If either kills too fast, why bother driving what is effectively a suicide box? But if they kill too slow then back to square 1. It's why I think vehicle guns and heavy/handhelds should follow similar lines. That being said, would it be bad if small rails behaved more like the assault forge gun. Traditionally infantry crew served weapons are simply vehicle pintle mounted weapons with parts swapped out for being usable by infantry. If we set it up right we could potentially be using vehicle model smalls as heavy weapons and vice versa. On a similar note, could the heavy weapons be converted to vehicle use as well? And finally on the heat mechanics. Heat was originally added to rails and blasters tou counteract infinite ammunition. Now that we actually have depletable ammunition magazines, is it feasible to looking at removing the trait in favor of ammo capacity control? AV

shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3830	Posted - 2015.01.26 10:59:00 - [31] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Splah damage for particle accelerator and particle cannon? Not a huge one but just enough to 2-shot ak0 sentinels without a doible hit ( useless comment) It's 2 meters at 234HP, you will have an hard time 2 shot a sentinel, but that is fair, splash must be for defense, not for offense. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6760	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:01:00 - [32] - Quote shaman oga wrote: H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Splah damage for particle accelerator and particle cannon? Not a huge one but just enough to 2-shot ak0 sentinels without a doible hit ( useless comment) It's 2 meters at 234HP, you will have an hard time 2 shot a sentinel, but that is fair, splash must be for defense, not for offense. On that note I'm debating recommending removing splash resistance for sents and replacing it with a racial weapon bonus since we seem to be (in due time) moving in that direction. But that comes around phase 2 or 3. AV

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15768	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:03:00 - [33] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alright I looked at your initial there. My first thought is that, unless you intend for EHP capacity to be based off the current Gunnlogi these turrets for AV will cause nosebleedingly short fights. 2000 DPS is mind-numbingly short duration. Currently the only turret that breaks 1000 DPS by any significant margin is the missile turret. For basic purposes, until you have the hulls locked down, that you make turret DPS step up rather than have one sub-1000 DPS cannon then two above 2000. Right now, without finalized hull average EHP I can only base these numbers off what we have now. My assesment In the aforementioned vacuum is that I think missiles need their rate of fire dropped and their velocity stepped up. There really should be no need for a fragmented version with a low splash damage hit with a moderate radius to represent collateral damage from a large shaped charge. In today's climate I'd recommend high alpha for rails around 1750 alpha and an overall base DPS of 700-750, a bit ahead of handheld AV. I would recommend setying missiles to a base 800-850 which would require a more sustained fire pattern than instablap barrage. And I would recommend setting blasblastersres to 900-950 DPS and tweak upward based on your finalized hulls. It will be easier to step the weapons up or down as needed en masse if we set up a baseline Rather than having to play guessing games with each one. If we start here, then it's easier to balance them so they can be used on infantry without being overpowering or needing special modules to tighten the dispersion. My two cents. Hope it helps. I believe missile burst dps is effectively 3600 and blaster havs need to get into short range. If the consensus is to reduce DPS overall, then we first get the dps/range curve right, and then reduce all dps. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 366	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:05:00 - [34] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I should probably post my reasoning here: Infantry AAV and large turrets pretty much have the same function. I believe that the turrets should be more advantageous for killing tanks though, so I believe keeping their overall DPS ahead of infantry AV is the way to go But not by a vast margin. Both have the same TTK issue. If either kills too fast, why bother driving what is effectively a suicide box? But if they kill too slow then back to square 1. It's why I think vehicle guns and heavy/handhelds should follow similar lines. That being said, would it be bad if small rails behaved more like the assault forge gun. Traditionally infantry crew served weapons are simply vehicle pintle mounted weapons with parts swapped out for being usable by infantry. If we set it up right we could potentially be using vehicle model smalls as heavy weapons and vice versa. On a similar note, could the heavy weapons be converted to vehicle use as well? And finally on the heat mechanics. Heat was originally added to rails and blasters tou counteract infinite ammunition. Now that we actually have depletable ammunition magazines, is it feasible to looking at removing the trait in favor of ammo capacity control? It means slow down railgun to 5/6 shot per reload, idk how many shot for a blaster, it is 200 if i m not going wrong, maybe should it become 100? It s more a number question and on that you are better than me The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6760	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:07:00 - [35] - Quote One of the oft-repeated complaints I keep hearing from HAV drivers is that tank vs. Tank engagements end too quickly. The gold standard seems to be who pulls the trigger with doubled damage mods first wins. I'm iffy but honestly if they want longer fights I can't think of a reason to tell 'em no. But it means the DHAVs will probably need a good turret bonus. AV
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 170	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:12:00 - [36] - Quote I suggest decrease Large Railgun ROF as it shot power was buffed. Almost any DS cannot tank even 3 volleys now, it could be even worse with increased shot damage. Tanks can tank 7k damage, but DS can not. But, in general, I like you direction to make railguns powerful alpha-strike weapon instead of ultimate-damage large machine gun. <[^_^]>
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 367	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:19:00 - [37] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: One of the oft-repeated complaints I keep hearing from HAV drivers is that tank vs. Tank engagements end too quickly. The gold standard seems to be who pulls the trigger with doubled damage mods first wins. I'm iffy but honestly if they want longer fights I can't think of a reason to tell 'em no. But it means the DHAVs will probably need a good turret bonus. True but with this amount of HP the only fight that can go on for more than a minute is triple reps madrugar blaster vs triple reps madrugar blaster and there should be no AV, because at the moment is enough a XT-201 and in max 2 volleys everything is dead... The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3830	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:26:00 - [38] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: One of the oft-repeated complaints I keep hearing from HAV drivers is that tank vs. Tank engagements end too quickly. The gold standard seems to be who pulls the trigger with doubled damage mods first wins. I'm iffy but honestly if they want longer fights I can't think of a reason to tell 'em no. But it means the DHAVs will probably need a good turret bonus. HAV vs HAV TTK are fine imho, i would like to keep the TTK short if one tank manage to ambush the other, i've also managed to destroy more than 1 HAV in a short time when i ambushed them. Frontal assault when both tanks activate modules take a good amount of time and are also attracting AV attention, if we raise the TTK, even if one tank destroy the other, then the AV will have enough time to esily destroy the remaining tank. This is also to take in consideration, if to destroy another tank, i have to waste mine because AV, then i will rather go AV myself to destroy the enemy tank and not lose mine. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:41:00 - [39] - Quote A quick comment here, i am not a fan a reducing the Missile turret clip. Yes they are OP vs Armor, but extremley UP v other shields. I don't want to be critical without giving a solution however, so i do want to also note that the missile turret has recieved a number of buffs. The most notable of which was when they got a -20% + 20% damage profile change. The main issue with this sort of profile damage is that a single Armor hardener (-25% damage resist) can only negate 5 percent of damage while a single shield hardener (-40%) can negate 60% missile damage With your proposal, missiles would do per clip 10* 540 = 5,400 damage, 4320 vs shields and 6480 vs armor. Vs 1 Active hardner 5,400 damage, (- 20% profile - 40% hardened = -60%) = 2160 vs shields (+20% - 25% hardned = -5%) 6156 armor. Still keeps it OP vs armor and UP vs shields. Proposal: How about giving it back the old hybrid damage profile, and keeping it at 12 rounds per magazine. 12 missiles per clip 6480 -10% damage 5832 damage vs shield + 10% = 7128 vs armor VS hardener active 6480 damage ( - 10% - 40% = -50%) vs shields = 3240 damage 6480 damage ( + 10% - 25% = -15%) vs armor = 5508 damage We can keep the missile count at 12 and still do less damage vs a hardened armor tank than 10 missiles do against an un hardned tank. 3240 damage can be negated by two ADV heavy shield extenders (giving current gunlogis) 4664 shields A light shield booster can knock the ehp back up to full in the 12 seconds it takes for a missile tank to reload. A second hardner negates another 40% damage. Cons: un hardend shield and armor tanks still will have a rough time of it. Pros: better balance in the AV turrets that heavily favor anti armor weapons, gives hardened armor tanks a fighting chance, while still leaving shield vehicles the advantage when fighting a missile tanks, just not as large as an advatage they had before. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 637	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:43:00 - [40] - Quote 1. Blaster changes mean jack if dispersion is the size of a barn door 2. Railgun - 2000per hit then it says heat is 11.3 so thats 8 shot without overheat? current hulls would be dead and so would proposed - What it needs is either less heat per shot or a heat sink module but 8 is too extreme and overall TTK is too short 3. Missiles alpha damage it what makes it great, if you dont kill the tank then you either run away or risk it and hope you got enough in the clip to finish it off when brawling - If missile has sustained fire like before then there isnt enough damage being caused by the time the next salvo is fired and it gives a change for the target to heal or escape because the missiles are too slow which makes missile useless at any range


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15768	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:44:00 - [41] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: A quick comment here, i am not a fan a reducing the Missile turret clip. Yes they are OP vs Armor, but extremley UP v other shields. I don't want to be critical without giving a solution however, so i do want to also note that the missile turret has recieved a number of buffs. The most notable of which was when they got a -20% + 20% damage profile change. The main issue with this sort of profile damage is that a single Armor hardener (-25% damage resist) can only negate 5 percent of damage while a single shield hardener (-40%) can negate 60% missile damage With your proposal, missiles would do per clip 10* 540 = 5,400 damage, 4320 vs shields and 6480 vs armor. Vs 1 Active hardner 5,400 damage, (- 20% profile - 40% hardened = -60%) = 2160 vs shields (+20% - 25% hardned = -5%) 6156 armor. Still keeps it OP vs armor and UP vs shields. Proposal: How about giving it a hybrid damage profile, and keeping it at 12 rounds per magazine. 12 missiles per clip 6480 -10% damage 5832 damage vs shield + 10% = 7128 vs armor VS hardener active 6480 damage ( - 10% - 40% = -50%) vs shields = 3240 damage 6480 damage ( + 10% - 25% = -15%) vs armor = 5508 damage We can keep the missile count at 12 and still do less damage vs a hardened armor tank than 10 missiles do against an un hardned tank. 3240 damage can be negated by two ADV heavy shield extenders (giving current gunlogis) 4664 shields A light shield booster can knock the ehp back up to full in the 12 seconds it takes for a missile tank to reload. A second hardner negates another 40% damage. Cons: un hardend shield and armor tanks still will have a rough time of it. Pros: better balance in the AV turrets that heavily favor anti armor weapons, gives hardened armor tanks a fighting chance, while still leaving shield vehicles the advantage when fighting a missile tanks, just not as large as an advatage they had before. What if we just make armor hardeners worth fitting, then armor vehicles can choose that. I would rather stick with missiles being explosive damage and thus -20/+20 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 925	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:46:00 - [42] - Quote shaman oga wrote: HAV vs HAV TTK are fine imho, i would like to keep the TTK short if one tank manage to ambush the other, i've also managed to destroy more than 1 HAV in a short time when i ambushed them. I tend to agree. I have very limited HAV experience yet it is clear to me that when a MLT fit Sica has over 7k ehp against rails that TTK is not much of an issue. Just yesterday I had two fights that each lasted for several minutes with each participant waiting to catch the other sufficiently off-guard to deliver the finishing blow. If TTK goes up by much it will be difficult to kill any HAV unless you team up on it. Just the powercreep from the introduction of UHAVs will likely put a upper limit to how much HAV-TTK can be increased. I guess today the problem is mostly the large missile turret. I'd love to see it return to its pre-1.7 form of 4-missile salvos at least on a conceptual level (peak DPS being almost identical to sustained DPS).
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 3832	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:50:00 - [43] - Quote Agreed on -20/+20, missile should still be the best option to go up against armor tanks, current meta of armor tanking shield tanks, have rendered them even more OP than what they currently are. If the meta will change people should think about it a little more before engaging a shield tank with a missilistic turret. A good comparison can be trying to kill a cal sentinel with a mass driver, it's not always a easy job. Pronounced Scam - man - hoga Minmatar omni-merc
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 11:56:00 - [44] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: For reference can we get a maximum heat capacity for large rails / blasters? First impression: Holy crap proposed rails do a lot of damage, I think they might drastically edge out other weapons based on that alone (3 railgun rounds >>> full missile volley). Is it possible to slow missile RoF and adjust damage so they're less of an instant-gank deathweapon and more of a 'bring these out when you want to ruin installations or a target that's sitting still'. I'm not great with how certain numbers would affect balance, but jumping missiles from 1.5 seconds (proposed) for full volley to 2.4 maybe? I don't want rails to be useless, but with the proposed stats on them they still have the lethal combination of damage and range that promotes red-line tank sniping. alot of people keep saying missile are instadeath... can someone PLEASE show me how thats done? I'd love to know, really, because its its only happened to me when i ran a dual shield hardener gunnlogi fit during cooldown or a maddy with no plates or hardeners running
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2005	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:01:00 - [45] - Quote ^one adv damage mod and catching someone between cycles or shooting at any armor tank. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:04:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: What if we just make armor hardeners worth fitting, then armor vehicles can choose that. I would rather stick with missiles being explosive damage and thus -20/+20 This has crossed my mind alot. It becomes a sort of house of cards. The current Missile meta vs Armor tanks is because of a lack of defense vs Missiles. Armor tanks need a hardener tough enough to stand a chance vs Missiles, yet not so tough as to completely negate swarms. Knock on effects might make my incubus very difficult to take down, for mathematical reasons rather than pilot skill. Missiles vs shields are UP at the moment and reducing the clip only adds to that. I'd guess i'd would to see how a new armor hardener works and the new eHP of armor tanks before tweaks to the missile. the current stats seem okay for today's meta, but i can only speculateabout the future tank meta. On paper, though a 12 second reload vs a new and improved blaster turret, coupled with a signifcant DPS reduction, as well as an armor hardner buff leaves me a bit worried for my missiles. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2824	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:09:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. If you're keeping the number of slots as is, then this is basically useless as nobody will gimp a shield fit to use it, and nobody will gimp a blaster fit over the place of NOS/scanner/active coolant. Railgun isn't too good at anything. I have non-fires, misfires, reload glitches, fire-automatically-until-it-overheats glitches, and sometimes it goes right through a target, most often a turret installation. I've also watched rounds go through dropships. Dunno if that's a bug, or working as intended as if the dropship has a rectangular hole inside its hit box. Also a new bug I saw a few days ago was a reload glitch with a Python, with a small missile. I agree with the large missile. The rate of fire should be reduced as should the damage per missile. Is there a working bonus for the Falchion yet? Blaster is not good enough at close range because of........... dispersion. I literally have to get right alongside a vehicle for it to be most effective. If you want it to be better, give the Vayu a bonus to the blaster. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Skybladev2 LUX AETERNA INT RUST415 170	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:19:00 - [48] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Railgun isn't too good at anything. I have non-fires, misfires, reload glitches, fire-automatically-until-it-overheats glitches, and sometimes it goes right through a target, most often a turret installation. I've also watched rounds go through dropships. Dunno if that's a bug, or working as intended as if the dropship has a rectangular hole inside its hit box. Yeah, same behavior for me. <[^_^]>
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6761	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:42:00 - [49] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: One of the oft-repeated complaints I keep hearing from HAV drivers is that tank vs. Tank engagements end too quickly. The gold standard seems to be who pulls the trigger with doubled damage mods first wins. I'm iffy but honestly if they want longer fights I can't think of a reason to tell 'em no. But it means the DHAVs will probably need a good turret bonus. HAV vs HAV TTK are fine imho, i would like to keep the TTK short if one tank manage to ambush the other, i've also managed to destroy more than 1 HAV in a short time when i ambushed them. Frontal assault when both tanks activate modules take a good amount of time and are also attracting AV attention, if we raise the TTK, even if one tank destroy the other, then the AV will have enough time to esily destroy the remaining tank. This is also to take in consideration, if to destroy another tank, i have to waste mine because AV, then i will rather go AV myself to destroy the enemy tank and not lose mine. I'm not talking about an HAV caught dead to rights. Most engagements where HAVs engage head on should last a little longer. Ambushes should be ockeying for flanking and weakpoints. But ambushes should be short, brutal affairs, I agree. I'm more talking about engagements where both tanks are jockeying for the best position, mostly. AV
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:46:00 - [50] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^one adv damage mod and catching someone between cycles or shooting at any armor tank. what level turret? and youre fitting this on a gunnlogi or maddy? either way youre only good for a single 1v1 bout. the gunnlogi turns into glass, and a maddy with that fit would need cpu mod, so glass fit again. thats hardly an OP tank. maybe i should start tossing the word "efficient" around. the missile launcher is "efficient" like a SCR lol. thing is though, missile arent used in PC. they arent even used in serious tanking. anyone that is pissed off at a tank that wants to kill it with a tank, is going to get a dual tank gunnlogi with a railgun.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6762	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:48:00 - [51] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: ^one adv damage mod and catching someone between cycles or shooting at any armor tank. what level turret? and youre fitting this on a gunnlogi or maddy? either way youre only good for a single 1v1 bout. the gunnlogi turns into glass, and a maddy with that fit would need cpu mod, so glass fit again. thats hardly an OP tank. maybe i should start tossing the word "efficient" around. the missile launcher is "efficient" like a SCR lol. thing is though, missile arent used in PC. they arent even used in serious tanking. anyone that is pissed off at a tank that wants to kill it with a tank, is going to get a dual tank gunnlogi with a railgun. Therein lies the problem. AV
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:49:00 - [52] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: What if we just make armor hardeners worth fitting, then armor vehicles can choose that. I would rather stick with missiles being explosive damage and thus -20/+20 This has crossed my mind alot. It becomes a sort of house of cards. The current Missile meta vs Armor tanks is because of a lack of defense vs Missiles. Armor tanks need a hardener tough enough to stand a chance vs Missiles, yet not so tough as to completely negate swarms. Knock on effects might make my incubus very difficult to take down, for mathematical reasons rather than pilot skill. Missiles vs shields are UP at the moment and reducing the clip only adds to that. I'd guess i'd would to see how a new armor hardener works and the new eHP of armor tanks before tweaks to the missile. the current stats seem okay for today's meta, but i can only speculateabout the future tank meta. On paper, though a 12 second reload vs a new and improved blaster turret, coupled with a signifcant DPS reduction, as well as an armor hardner buff leaves me a bit worried for my missiles. actually id argue that maddy's are junk to begin with because they have crap fitting capacity. they cant field a competitive defense without giving up a competitive and practical offensive ability. most maddy's i see have between 4k and 6k armor hp. thats not enough to protect it. thats the problem. the missiles are actually fine. youre nerfing missiles because maddy's are broken. the fix should simply be... fix the fitting on the maddy.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6762	Posted - 2015.01.26 12:57:00 - [53] - Quote Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. AV
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:00:00 - [54] - Quote would rather not post these for all the world to see, but here are some PC tank fights from last week. Im running test fits in both videos to judge their competitiveness. http://youtu.be/kXD5TCWfj64?t=8m http://youtu.be/tP1S22B9-Ts?t=7m3s you guys tell me where the maddy's are. tell me where the missiles are. i saw dual brick tanked gunnlogis, dual hardener gunnlogis and dual damage mod gunnlogis. thats it
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 371	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:03:00 - [55] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Madrugar has no CPU The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep".One of the few vehiculist remained in dust 514
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2006	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:05:00 - [56] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: would rather not post these for all the world to see, but here are some PC tank fights from last week. Im running test fits in both videos to judge their competitiveness. http://youtu.be/kXD5TCWfj64?t=8m http://youtu.be/tP1S22B9-Ts?t=7m3s you guys tell me where the maddy's are. tell me where the missiles are. i saw dual brick tanked gunnlogis, dual hardener gunnlogis and dual damage mod gunnlogis. thats it That is part of the problem that people are attempting to address, the 'meta' fit where x thing is clearly superior to others. 2x Hardener gunnlogi can pull 10kehp and reduces missile damage to pathetic values. Missiles vs shields is not the 'meta' so it won't be used, however when an armor tank shows up, missiles eat it alive. Missiles can also kill one of those dual hardener tanks so long as they catch it when hardeners are down. I would say it's one of the fundamental problems of the current HAV design - armor is underpowered and missiles are hilariously OP vs armor, but they suck vs shields. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2827	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:09:00 - [57] - Quote H0riz0n Unlimit wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Madrugar has no CPU It doesn't have enough PG either. If the Gunnlogi can use complex mods and a PRO turret, then the Maddy should be able to do the same. If we didn't have the CPU and PG skills taken away from us, it wouldn't be such a big problem. It would still be a problem, but not as big as it is. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:10:00 - [58] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: would rather not post these for all the world to see, but here are some PC tank fights from last week. Im running test fits in both videos to judge their competitiveness. http://youtu.be/kXD5TCWfj64?t=8m http://youtu.be/tP1S22B9-Ts?t=7m3s you guys tell me where the maddy's are. tell me where the missiles are. i saw dual brick tanked gunnlogis, dual hardener gunnlogis and dual damage mod gunnlogis. thats it That is part of the problem that people are attempting to address, the 'meta' fit where x thing is clearly superior to others. 2x Hardener gunnlogi can pull 10kehp and reduces missile damage to pathetic values. Missiles vs shields is not the 'meta' so it won't be used, however when an armor tank shows up, missiles eat it alive. Missiles can also kill one of those dual hardener tanks so long as they catch it when hardeners are down. I would say it's one of the fundamental problems of the current HAV design - armor is underpowered and missiles are hilariously OP vs armor, but they suck vs shields. they where designed to be a hard counter to armor, and i always assumed that laser turrets would be OP vs shields whenever they come out
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 781	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:10:00 - [59] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: actually id argue that maddy's are junk to begin with because they have crap fitting capacity. they cant field a competitive defense without giving up a competitive and practical offensive ability. most maddy's i see have between 4k and 6k armor hp. thats not enough to protect it. thats the problem. the missiles are actually fine. youre nerfing missiles because maddy's are broken. the fix should simply be... fix the fitting on the maddy. Don't worry, all tanks are going to get some fitting love, and rattati is trying it out himself just to see where the discreptencies lie. CCP Rattati wrote: Guys I am doing my homework here, with the loadouts. I started a brand new character and walked exactly through the steps of "what mighe each fit be with a given PG/CPU", without using PG/CPU mods. That means using suboptimal fits to experiment and get a fit under the cap. To do a full PRO tank, and leaving the small turrets, we need way higher PG/CPU, and or some core PG/CPU skills, that I like actually. ! I hink because turrets became a side issue in the other thread about the Hulls, we have an independent turret thread here. I think we should try to break down the current meta the best we can, point out both its strengths and weaknesses so that when the hull proposals are consolidated, it should be easier to adapt current turrets for new purposes. Me, i'm just trying to adapt turret proposals against current meta as a baseline of what to expect from future tank builds. eg. if the tweaks to missiles seem UP to current shield tank meta, then i can hypothesize they will be UP against superior future sheild tank meta. If the opposite happened and missile tanks got (lets say a clip and damage buff to fight shields) to be twice as effective against armor tanks, i could hypothosize that it would be very difficult for future armor tank meta and drastically imapct the stats to propose for the future tank hulls. I think thats the best way to contribute to this thread untill we know what the future hulls will be able to fit. Then we can really get dirty with it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2006	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:11:00 - [60] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: they where designed to be a hard counter to armor, and i always assumed that laser turrets would be OP vs shields whenever they come out Hard counters are terrible design. Soft counters are much nicer. Essentially it goes 'ha stupid idiot, you brought out something that wasn't the meta, hope you like dying!'. It turns it into a contest of stats rather than a contest of skill. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:27:00 - [61] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: they where designed to be a hard counter to armor, and i always assumed that laser turrets would be OP vs shields whenever they come out Hard counters are terrible design. Soft counters are much nicer. Essentially it goes 'ha stupid idiot, you brought out something that wasn't the meta, hope you like dying!'. It turns it into a contest of stats rather than a contest of skill. since CCP Blam!s guiding hand, we ended up trying to undo everything he did. the current overall design is "waves of opportunity" everything is based on hard counters currently. passive hit n run fits to force active module fits into early activation so they can kill them on cool down. active mod fits for brawling. blaster vs passive shield tanks railguns vs everything missiles vs armor tanks. i can literally look at a tank and know the fit based on its HP values because theres only a handful of fits anyone runs. its not going to change though. FOTM will always be the fit thats noob friendly. smart players know how to counter with completely whacked out fits. theres no soft counter i can think of except the case of the traditional brawler maddy vs a long range railgun gunnlogi. that always plays out with whoever control range best wins. its not based on the fit at that point because the counter is in the hands and experience of the pilots involved. we dont have that in today vehicle fights
The-Errorist 971	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:29:00 - [62] - Quote Changes look pretty good, but the dispersion growth rate of blasters in general when firing needs go down. Edit: as The True Inferno said, the ability to reload while overheating would be great for blasters. MAG + Dust cb vet, an alt of Velvet Overkill & Agent Overkill AKA Enkouyami (Main PSN).
The True Inferno Taiyou Corporation Proficiency V. 148	Posted - 2015.01.26 13:33:00 - [63] - Quote My (long list of) suggestions Large turrets: Blaster turret: -Should be primally AI, strives in CQC -Change damage to around 180-200 per shot -Change damage falloff damage to provide a damage increase in CQC-á -Change clip to 100 -Increase accuracy/Return it to per nerf form -Reduce efficiency against infantry to around 50% -Reduce turn speed of turret, which would create another use for tracking enhancers to exist and balances anti-infantry(eg-If infantry is standing still, tanker easy-blaps them, If infantry moves around quickly/runs at an angle, tanker has a hard time keeping up with them) - The ability to reload while overheating Missile(Ballistics) turret: -Change to burst fire -Create two separate turret types, rocket and missile, change skill to ballistics Missile turret: -Designed to fire missiles that lock-on to vehicles and installations(possibly using swarm launcher mechanics) primarily AV - Missiles would travel towards target at medium velocity - Reduced damage to around 440-460 and smaller aoe of around 1-1.2 meters - Missiles would only be able to turn half as effective as swarms - Bursts launches 4 missiles with a small burst interval of around 0.6-0.8 sec -Long reload time Rocket turret - Designed to fire rockets which have no targeting systems, equally effective at both AV and AI but would not strive in either area - Rockets would travel at high velocity - Rockets would do around 530-550 damage and have an aoe of around 3-4 meters - Burst launches 4 rockets with a large burst interval of around 1.2 sec - Medium reload time Rail turret - Should be primarily a AV turret, high alpha, medium to low dps - Instead of having a max range of 300 meters and ending there, it should do full damage-áat 275 and should have damage falloff until its max range of 350 meters - The ability to reload while overheating Don't have much more to say about this turret Small turrets: - CHANGE THE DAM DISPERSION SO YOU CAN AT LEAST FIRE STRAIGHT WHILE MOVING(would fix almost all of problems with small turrets) Blaster turret - Improve accuracy - Increase range - Improve hit detection - Slightly increase efficiency against vehicles Railgun turret - Reduce effect against infantry as its an AV turret - Improve-áreticle so you can acutely hit what your aiming at Missile turret - Slightly increase rof to balance it with the railgun turret - Increase its freaken aoe from this tiny 2.5 meters to around 3.5 to 4, also why the hell was this changed? ScP = GÖÑ Burst AR all the way! An Ace Pilot
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6765	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:23:00 - [64] - Quote Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. AV
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 167	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:41:00 - [65] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo I'd focus on equalizing Damage per Ammo, not necessarily Damage per clip This has already been brought up, but current rail-guns overheat on the fourth shot, so I'd leave their heat statistics alone. General concensus among HAV operators is that Tank v Tank is too short atm (even with shields), so I'd also look into lowering overall DPS (or raising overall eHP considerably) once a comfortable ratio of range:DPS is thought out I also think that the 2k DPS is a bit excessive on blasters compared to the 967 on rails. Blasters should be about 20-30% more DPS than rails, not 100% more imo...my reasoning is a combination of space-side blasters vs rails, but also a ratio greater than current infantry based weaponry (albeit slightly increased). If you're going to keep Large "Missile" Turret Salvo functionality, I think you're on the right track...particularly if you make armor hardeners worth fitting (See posts in the bring back initiative threads on having both Standard and Flux hardener for both shields and armor). Are you flat out opposed to changing how the current turrets work? (I.E.: No PLC or Shotgun Blaster)? Or are you saving discussion of that for once you get solid DPS and other Statistics numbers down? Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 822	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:42:00 - [66] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. issues? haha this is classic CCP.oh, something has been UP for months? lets make it FOTM for 6 months. we know its OP, but we need supporting data first to confirm what everyone already knew was going to happen. "in other news... sales of AV weapon went up by 1000% today amid cries of OP tanks." "its Tanks 514 all over again!" "I'm quitting Dust" "I'm gonna biomass myself unless ccp fixes this!" and tanker's will be like... "Blame CCP, we told them not to do it."

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15780	Posted - 2015.01.26 14:46:00 - [67] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Which is what I have been saying as well, this thread is about making all three turrets viable. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

BL4CKST4R Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3535	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:54:00 - [68] - Quote The large blaster needs slower rate of fire and more damage per shot, less ai more av. Each shot needs a tiny radius and damage (like 40 damage) for suppression. The rail needs to be less viable at short range tank combat, and more long range sniping but with slower shot intervals. Needs os splash radius and damage back, but with lower rof it won't be a murder machine more suppressive really. The missile turret needs to fall in the middle ground between these two, it should have a tight missile spread for better mid range capabilities but a lower dps than the blaster so it doesn't excel at cq. It does need better sustained damage capabilities so the reload should be buffed, honestly all turrets need a slight reloading buff more so for the missile turret though. supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6768	Posted - 2015.01.26 15:59:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Which is what I have been saying as well, this thread is about making all three turrets viable. My reasoning for wanting to start low is once you stack a 2000 DPS blaster on a UHAV, which is resistant to swarms, forge guns et al, there's going to be an issue even if you force it to require a module. 750 base DPS on any turret would have been sufficient to challenge even a chromosome Surya bricked out. I actually killed one with my 600 DPS base damage IAFG. But if we start the DPS values lower as a baseline: 750 ish for rails at proto: High alpha, slower rate of fire means brawling is a bad idea. DHAVs would not be overpowering compared to other hull types using the weapon and you could justify re-introducing splash. You'd still OHK infantry on a direct hit, but you can't spam shots as fast, so you have to rely on the warhead to clear the rats and make them run. 850-ish to missiles: Removes the point blank "armor killing shotgun" and justifies adding decent splash at mid range, mid alpha and mid RoF. Missiles could easily be a workhorse weapon if properly set up, well balanced for fighting all comers. 900-950 for blasters: This is the DPS equivalent of the HMG. The HMG has a lot of obnoxious but even if you tightened the dispersion on the blaster you won't achieve as reliable kills without patience. You wouldn't be ripping out DPS so fast that it has to be artificially slowed, and without splash it means every shot has to count. The way blasters are set up infantry can literally step between the fire delay and maybe only get hit once. This will be the go-to weapon for UHAVs most likely. I'd like to set the turrets up so they are formidable, but do not require artificial brakes to protect infantry that will gimp their AV capacity. I think there's ways we can do this without breaking the balancing acts wide open. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4554	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:26:00 - [70] - Quote You're basically always going to have issues with any turret that has a high fire rate and lots of shots in the magazine, like the Large Blaster, when it comes to Turret vs Infantry balance. As it is now dispersion is pretty high but even 1-2 shot bursts can land shots pretty close to where you want them to go. This is of course an element of luck involved in hitting infantry with a Large Blaster but the fact of the matter is that you can still do it consistently enough to cause issues, and rightfully so as the weapon is supposed to be AV. It is far easier to consistently kill infantry with a Large Blaster than it is a Railgun or Missile turret. The immediate reaction is "Oh just increase dispersion further" but you quickly get to the point where dispersion is so bad you can't even hit a vehicle properly with enough shots to deal appreciable damage which is part of what makes the Large Blaster so horrible at AV. Dropping the fire rate and upping the damage might help but might also be worse. It means that while less shots are going out, it takes all that much fewer lucky shots to drop an infantry, so it's questionable if that will change much at all. What is also problematic is that "Short Range" for a vehicle is vastly different for an infantry. Meaning that even though the blaster is "Short Range" for a vehicle, it's actual range is seemingly much larger for infantry trying to take cover. It might be a bit ambitious but I think a general redesign on how a Large Blaster fires would be the best solution. The two best proposals in my opinion are as follows: Shotgun Blaster: I've always felt the Shotgun really hit the nail on the head of what a blaster is, which is surprise up-close "OH KITTEN!" damage which is basically going to rip anything apart that's close to it. If the Large Blaster could fire like a shotgun, preferably lots of pellets with a low damage per pellet, in full auto mode with a pretty slot refire rate, you could achieve a true Blaster feel. Dispersion is tight enough to reliably hit the majority of your pellets onto a large target at 30-40m but would struggle to do a lot of damage to a small target due to low pellet damage. I don't know if you guys can retrofit the shotgun fire mode to a turret and playtest it internally, but if you can give it a go and see how it feels. Plasma Cannon: This also hits that Blaster feel pretty damn well. The "I dunno if I"m going hit you but if I do, it's going to hurt". I believe it was True Adamance that came up with this one, but essentially to fire either a 3 burst of Plasma Cannon shots or a triangle of them. This is fairly self explanatory, but at close range you could easily land all 3 shots on a large target, but hitting a small target would be....well about as hard as consistently doing it with a Infantry PLC. It's kind of a variant of the shotgun, just with very few, but higher damage 'pellets'. Damage per shot should obviously be lower than a PLC. Again if internal playtesting is possible, I'd love to see how this sort of concept performs. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2430	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:30:00 - [71] - Quote Quick question I noticed that the Energy/Projectile Large Turrets were not included in the Spreadsheet. Wouldn't it be a good idea to include them in the balance pass or will they just be analogous to the similar hybrid turret (Artillery/Beam->Rail and Autocannon/Pulse->Blaster)? This is of course assuming that when we get Racial Parity among vehicles soon, we'll be getting Racial Parity among Turrets as well. Thanks in advance. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 927	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:37:00 - [72] - Quote I like the blaster in its form of a vehicle mounted assault rifle. I also like that it is an AI-capable weapon. Again, this ties HAVs into the escalation of a match very nicely. However, if any turret has AI-capabilities - that means if HAVs are part of the rest of the match - then this AI-capability has to be factored in with the 'utility' of the turret. If one turret is good at AV and also good at AI it's going to be plain more useful than another turret that is only capable of AV. That is how we got to the recent situation where the blaster was exceptional against infantry but fell short against vehicles. These days it's bad against both AI and AV. There are three levers here. AI capability, AV capability and fitting requirements. I don't think we have to reduce the problem to "all turrets have equal AI capability of zero, equal AV capability and equal fitting requirements".
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2287	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:47:00 - [73] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: You're basically always going to have issues with any turret that has a high fire rate and lots of shots in the magazine, like the Large Blaster, when it comes to Turret vs Infantry balance. As it is now dispersion is pretty high but even 1-2 shot bursts can land shots pretty close to where you want them to go. This is of course an element of luck involved in hitting infantry with a Large Blaster but the fact of the matter is that you can still do it consistently enough to cause issues, and rightfully so as the weapon is supposed to be AV. It is far easier to consistently kill infantry with a Large Blaster than it is a Railgun or Missile turret. The immediate reaction is "Oh just increase dispersion further" but you quickly get to the point where dispersion is so bad you can't even hit a vehicle properly with enough shots to deal appreciable damage which is part of what makes the Large Blaster so horrible at AV. Dropping the fire rate and upping the damage might help but might also be worse. It means that while less shots are going out, it takes all that much fewer lucky shots to drop an infantry, so it's questionable if that will change much at all. What is also problematic is that "Short Range" for a vehicle is vastly different for an infantry. Meaning that even though the blaster is "Short Range" for a vehicle, it's actual range is seemingly much larger for infantry trying to take cover. It might be a bit ambitious but I think a general redesign on how a Large Blaster fires would be the best solution. The two best proposals in my opinion are as follows: Shotgun Blaster: I've always felt the Shotgun really hit the nail on the head of what a blaster is, which is surprise up-close "OH KITTEN!" damage which is basically going to rip anything apart that's close to it. If the Large Blaster could fire like a shotgun, preferably lots of pellets with a low damage per pellet, in full auto mode with a pretty slot refire rate, you could achieve a true Blaster feel. Dispersion is tight enough to reliably hit the majority of your pellets onto a large target at 30-40m but would struggle to do a lot of damage to a small target due to low pellet damage. I don't know if you guys can retrofit the shotgun fire mode to a turret and playtest it internally, but if you can give it a go and see how it feels. Plasma Cannon: This also hits that Blaster feel pretty damn well. The "I dunno if I"m going hit you but if I do, it's going to hurt". I believe it was True Adamance that came up with this one, but essentially to fire either a 3 burst of Plasma Cannon shots or a triangle of them. This is fairly self explanatory, but at close range you could easily land all 3 shots on a large target, but hitting a small target would be....well about as hard as consistently doing it with a Infantry PLC. It's kind of a variant of the shotgun, just with very few, but higher damage 'pellets'. Damage per shot should obviously be lower than a PLC. Again if internal playtesting is possible, I'd love to see how this sort of concept performs. The issue with making the large blaster the best CQC AV turret will make missiles rather worthless. Unless if the large blaster is limited to an incredibly short range like 50 meters, the large railgun will simply be better at AV than missiles beyond the large blaster's optimal. Compared to large missiles, large railguns have 1) higher accuracy, 2) faster projectile speed, and 3) higher damage per shot. This makes it much easier to hit targets at range and you don't have to land as many shots to deal the necessary damage. Also add in the proposed higher splash radius and damage and it's better suited to killing infantry as well. The only way I see to keep missiles competitive is to give them slight passive tracking abilities against vehicles. Meaning, each missile will automatically guide itself with limited capabilities to the vehicle closest to where the user is aiming (maybe a slight redesign of the reticle to show this target area where missiles will passively track vehicles). This is to allow the large missile turret to be usable at longer ranges (since currently if you've ever used one you'll know that it's only effective up to about 100 meters) and be able to apply the only thing that makes it good: its alpha DPS. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2287	Posted - 2015.01.26 16:51:00 - [74] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: I like the blaster in its form of a vehicle mounted assault rifle. I also like that it is an AI-capable weapon. Again, this ties HAVs into the escalation of a match very nicely. However, if any turret has AI-capabilities - that means if HAVs are part of the rest of the match - then this AI-capability has to be factored in with the 'utility' of the turret. If one turret is good at AV and also good at AI it's going to be plain more useful than another turret that is only capable of AV. That is how we got to the recent situation where the blaster was exceptional against infantry but fell short against vehicles. These days it's bad against both AI and AV. There are three levers here. AI capability, AV capability and fitting requirements. I don't think we have to reduce the problem to "all turrets have equal AI capability of zero, equal AV capability and equal fitting requirements". I'd prefer it the most if the types of turrets (not size) determined their roles: Blasters: best at AI, worst at AV Missiles: good at both Railguns: best at AV, worst at AI I think the large blaster fell perfectly in its role before it got the dispersion nerf. It was the best at AI but the worst at AV, and people seemed to forget that you need as much skill to aim it as you do with any other weapon. It never did the aiming for you. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4556	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:02:00 - [75] - Quote Harpyja wrote: The issue with making the large blaster the best CQC AV turret will make missiles rather worthless. Unless if the large blaster is limited to an incredibly short range like 50 meters, the large railgun will simply be better at AV than missiles beyond the large blaster's optimal. Compared to large missiles, large railguns have 1) higher accuracy, 2) faster projectile speed, and 3) higher damage per shot. This makes it much easier to hit targets at range and you don't have to land as many shots to deal the necessary damage. Also add in the proposed higher splash radius and damage and it's better suited to killing infantry as well. The only way I see to keep missiles competitive is to give them slight passive tracking abilities against vehicles. Meaning, each missile will automatically guide itself with limited capabilities to the vehicle closest to where the user is aiming (maybe a slight redesign of the reticle to show this target area where missiles will passively track vehicles). This is to allow the large missile turret to be usable at longer ranges (since currently if you've ever used one you'll know that it's only effective up to about 100 meters) and be able to apply the only thing that makes it good: its alpha DPS. I agree. For a turret which sports (I believe) 300m range...good luck hitting anything that's moving at 300m. I think if you make Missiles more viable at medium to long range, either by some passive tracking or higher missile velocity, you can afford to tone down its DPS to a more reasonable level so you're not instablapping Madrugars. Currently, as you stated, Missiles are restricted to be a short to medium range weapon which I don't think was the intention, nor is it really in line with EVE standards of missiles being fairly long range within their size class. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4558	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:14:00 - [76] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: I like the blaster in its form of a vehicle mounted assault rifle. I also like that it is an AI-capable weapon. Again, this ties HAVs into the escalation of a match very nicely. However, if any turret has AI-capabilities - that means if HAVs are part of the rest of the match - then this AI-capability has to be factored in with the 'utility' of the turret. If one turret is good at AV and also good at AI it's going to be plain more useful than another turret that is only capable of AV. That is how we got to the recent situation where the blaster was exceptional against infantry but fell short against vehicles. These days it's bad against both AI and AV. There are three levers here. AI capability, AV capability and fitting requirements. I don't think we have to reduce the problem to "all turrets have equal AI capability of zero, equal AV capability and equal fitting requirements". I'd prefer it the most if the types of turrets (not size) determined their roles: Blasters: best at AI, worst at AV Missiles: good at both Railguns: best at AV, worst at AI I think the large blaster fell perfectly in its role before it got the dispersion nerf. It was the best at AI but the worst at AV, and people seemed to forget that you need as much skill to aim it as you do with any other weapon. It never did the aiming for you. Yes and No. I think it should go on a gradient scale <------------Best AP---------------------------------------------------Best AV------------> Small Blaster - Small Missile - Small Rail - Large Blaster - Large Missile - Large Rail However when I say that I mean in a generalist, broad sense. Typically speaking burst damage and range are going to excel in AV capabilities, which is why Rails do so well. However that's in a broad sense, and I think that even though Railguns are considered better AV than a Blaster overall, if a Railgun and a Blaster get into a brawl at close range, the Blaster should still be superior. So in general yes, the Large Blaster is more AP than AV compared to the Rail, but it should still outperform the rail when within its optimal range. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6770	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:31:00 - [77] - Quote what happens if you make missiles like a "burst" weapon with fast launch, lower alpha but a wide area saturation and decently fast reload? This is PURE brainstorming guys. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 641	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:47:00 - [78] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: what happens if you make missiles like a "burst" weapon with fast launch, lower alpha but a wide area saturation and decently fast reload? This is PURE brainstorming guys. 1. Not enough damage to kill a target since you need multiple bursts assuming each missile hits the target and each break gives the target vehicle time to react with any mods they have and time to move and get into position to counter or just back away completely meaning a chase is on or a brawl 2. Infantry tears if the satuation area is big and splash is in line with a 6ft missile
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 928	Posted - 2015.01.26 17:49:00 - [79] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: This is PURE brainstorming guys. I think the "peak DPS near sustained DPS" design space is completely unoccupied right now. Basically give it 4 in the mag for a ~1200 hp volley and a ~1.5 sec reload. Arrives at 800 DPS until ammo runs out. If you're going to accept delayed damage application, why not specialize in prolonged engagements?
Operative 1174 Uuali Y.A.M.A.H 394	Posted - 2015.01.26 18:33:00 - [80] - Quote Fix the hit detection et al on small blasters on an ADS. I've been right down on targets and only one round registers if even that. I'm better than laser focused; I'm hybrid focused.

501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 821	Posted - 2015.01.26 18:50:00 - [81] - Quote Is possible to readd the types of turrets from Pre 1.7? That way you have variations? "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner Official 0uter.Heaven Mascot XD Moody come back SWBF3!!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4562	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:01:00 - [82] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Is possible to readd the types of turrets from Pre 1.7? That way you have variations? Variants are an obvious step but I feel the base turrets themselves need work, and since variants are built of the base turrets, it would be ill advised to implement them at this time. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2889	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:46:00 - [83] - Quote Please remove any rail damage bonuses to tanks, especially on the DHAVs. It will promote nothing but triple damage-modded redline tanks. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:34:00 - [84] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. Just make a blaster turret AI!! IT WAS MEANT TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4563	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:37:00 - [85] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. Just make a blaster turret AI!! IT WAS MEANT TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Souce? The only official stance I've ever seen is that Large Turrets are AV, small turrets are AP. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:39:00 - [86] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Alright I looked at your initial there. My first thought is that, unless you intend for EHP capacity to be based off the current Gunnlogi these turrets for AV will cause nosebleedingly short fights. 2000 DPS is mind-numbingly short duration. Currently the only turret that breaks 1000 DPS by any significant margin is the missile turret. For basic purposes, until you have the hulls locked down, that you make turret DPS step up rather than have one sub-1000 DPS cannon then two above 2000. Right now, without finalized hull average EHP I can only base these numbers off what we have now. My assesment In the aforementioned vacuum is that I think missiles need their rate of fire dropped and their velocity stepped up. There really should be no need for a fragmented version with a low splash damage hit with a moderate radius to represent collateral damage from a large shaped charge. In today's climate I'd recommend high alpha for rails around 1750 alpha and an overall base DPS of 700-750, a bit ahead of handheld AV. I would recommend setying missiles to a base 800-850 which would require a more sustained fire pattern than instablap barrage. And I would recommend setting blasblastersres to 900-950 DPS and tweak upward based on your finalized hulls. It will be easier to step the weapons up or down as needed en masse if we set up a baseline Rather than having to play guessing games with each one. If we start here, then it's easier to balance them so they can be used on infantry without being overpowering or needing special modules to tighten the dispersion. My two cents. Hope it helps. I believe missile burst dps is effectively 3600 and blaster havs need to get into short range. If the consensus is to reduce DPS overall, then we first get the dps/range curve right, and then reduce all dps. Make it rock papers and scissors. Railguns- AV Missiles- AV/Infantry depending on fragmented or not Blasters- AI turrret that does roughly 600 DPS to Infantry up to 50m with pin point accuracy minus the magnetic bullet effect we used to have - Clip of 40 Introduce the Scattered blaster that has High DPS with a little bit lower Dispersion than now and have 100 in a clip. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:43:00 - [87] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. Just make a blaster turret AI!! IT WAS MEANT TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Souce? The only official stance I've ever seen is that Large Turrets are AV, small turrets are AP. Whatever is AP/AI get's nerfed to sh*t because infantry cry... There was not a single good complaint between chromosome and 1.6 about large blaster turrets. Than CCP messed them up. They need to go back to the way they were. Blasters being AV is some bull crap started by Rattati. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 20:54:00 - [88] - Quote Rattati- Don't reduce missiles ammo- it is unnecessary nerf and no need for it. Also the Blaster should fire slower but do more damage per shot. When I think of Tank Large Cannons, I think of slow firing high damage type of round. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdL1SvuR1EA Watch Level caps turret. (the main one) That is what the large blaster should be like. The small blaster better suits high RPM like a mini gun. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4567	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:07:00 - [89] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Whatever is AP/AI get's nerfed to sht because infantry cry... There was not a single good complaint between chromosome and 1.6 about large blaster turrets. Than CCP messed them up. They need to go back to the way they were. Blasters being AV is some bull crap started by Rattati. Actually Large Blasters were absurdly good at killing infantry, and it was a huge problem. And that's coming from someone who used them a shitload back in the day. I would constantly get infantry kills in situations and ranges where I had not business getting said kills. Tell me, if Large Blasters are supposed to be AP, then what is the purpose of Small Blasters? The same thing but weaker? How do you plan to balance those two without making one over or underpowered? "That little s*t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1596	Posted - 2015.01.26 21:18:00 - [90] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Whatever is AP/AI get's nerfed to sh*t because infantry cry... There was not a single good complaint between chromosome and 1.6 about large blaster turrets. Than CCP messed them up. They need to go back to the way they were. Blasters being AV is some bull crap started by Rattati. Actually Large Blasters were absurdly good at killing infantry, and it was a huge problem. And that's coming from someone who used them a shitload back in the day. I would constantly get infantry kills in situations and ranges where I had not business getting said kills. Tell me, if Large Blasters are supposed to be AP, then what is the purpose of Small Blasters? The same thing but weaker? How do you plan to balance those two without making one over or underpowered? Tell me, if light weapons are AP like Combat Rifle with DPS of 600. Isn't it on to have a combat rifle like side arm (SMG) with lower DPS as a secondary? Anyway, false, they were good but not OP. HMG has more DPS than a blaster turret, hell even a ScR had more DPS than a blaster turret. Not to mention that the good Proto Blaster turret used to be 1 million frekin isk compared to HMG that was 47k isk. The range was good and expected from a large Turret. It was good in close quarters and was viable in medium range up up to about 50-60m. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 906	Posted - 2015.01.27 10:08:00 - [121] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: And make long range always better? I disagree. Naturally, and infantry vs infantry combat has many precedents already - a shotgun blast up close is devastating.. a few meters away, less so. A sniper rifle shot is as painful at any range, but good luck trying to hit someone with a sniper rifle while in shotgun range...
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:19:00 - [122] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. 1. So you are saying that aiming is bad now and that if you have proper aim and are good you should get punished?
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:20:00 - [123] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: The-Errorist wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Madrugars suffer from massive fitting failures. The gunnlogi fitting is very generous and allows solid fits. Even to the point of rendering many turrets and AV options moot. Have you seen the insane proposed PG/CPU stats for the Gallente tanks? They'll be able to fit almost everything. Here's some example fits: (Used Protofits for used PG/CPU with max fitting skills) PRO tank: 3822 PG & 1093 CPU All proto Large Blaster 2 Small Railguns Blaster dmg mods Fuel Injector Armor Hardener 120mm plate Heavy rep Leftover: 960 PG and 213 CPU. ADV tank: 3227 PG & 930 CPU Same as above Leftover: 365 PG and 50 CPU. STD tank: 3070 PG & 901 CPU Same as above Leftover: 208PG and 21 CPU. It's not proposed till it's proposed. Until then it's just numbers on a spreadsheet. The intent is a narrow full protofit of not the most expensive mods with all fitting skills. 1. 5slot layout no matter how good is not proto to me 2. With them extra PG/CPU you can easily put on some extra module slots per level
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.01.27 11:26:00 - [124] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Harpyja wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As to the blaster, its current form is as anti-infantry, and trying to force it to be AV only makes it more useless than it is. Either dedicate it to AI at the expense of AV, or completely overhaul it for AV duty. But its current iteration cannot be buffed for AV duty without overpowering it against AI, and balancing it against infantry makes it worthless as AV. Because of how large blasters operate (like fully automatic assault rifles), they will always be the most reliable of the large turrets against infantry. Unless there is a complete redesign of the large blaster turret, it should be the worst at AV out of the the large turrets. Otherwise it would break the balance again. Each turret needs to be clearly defined on where it sits on the AI-AV scale. I like how Pokey arranged the turrets: AI <----> AV: small blaster, small missile, small railgun, large blaster, large missile, large railgun And make long range always better? I disagree. 1. Long range is only good if you have line of sight or are in a head on battle where flanking cannot be applied or the circle of doom 1a. Most maps have redline which are on hills and that is where you spawn next to a hill, if you moved back the redline then the spawns would be behind the hills and they have to come out to play which means they can be flanked 2. The railgun has the poorest tracking of them all, but like a TD in WW2 most have fixed turret positions and could only move slightly to the left and right so flanking and circling them was useful due to TD having to move the hull to keep tracking 2a. The TD which had turrets were big things and didnt turn fast, also the hull itself was weaker and so was the turret 3. Large blaster - Pre 1.7 no one complained, if its going to be better at killing infantry then make it less AV but dont punish the aiming ability of pilots - It was simple if the dot is orange you got a hit, now its luck
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 12:39:00 - [125] - Quote Unless 20,000 EHP HAVs is going to become the norm what would be the point of 2000 base DPS weapons is more my point. Hitting infantry doesn't bug me at all. Hitting accurately at 2000 DPS against infantry isn't a fight. It's farming easy mode. Instagib should be reserved for high alpha weaponry. AV
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 291	Posted - 2015.01.27 14:06:00 - [126] - Quote Rattati: Looking at all the numbers, with the proposed changes to the large turrets damage, clip size, splash, reload speed etc, I feel you have a firm grasp of the situation. It was mentioned earlier that large rails overheat on the 4th shot while the spreadsheet I believe says currently 6. I think the current heat build up per shot is closer to the proposed heat build up per shot, the old turrets may have overheated at 6 so those could be an old models Stat. The vision seems sound and I am still excited to see HAVS getting some love.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6793	Posted - 2015.01.27 14:16:00 - [127] - Quote Honestly I would like to see less heat control on HAVs using rail and blaster tech and more reliance on magazine capacity. Especially since heat was the brake on unlimited ammo tanks. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2015	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:18:00 - [128] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: I think the currently 'proposed' blaster will end up being something that harvests maximum tears from infantry if it functions identically to the variant we have in game. By changing to to be a shotgun style turret you can make it so its still 'technically' able to shoot infantry, but it isn't ultra-hyper lethal to them as only a few pellets would hit, as opposed to shooting at vehicles where all pellets are likely to hit. If we were to give it a RPM of 100 (one round every .6s) that's only marginally faster than current shotguns (.7s repeat) and it would allow for 1200 damage (still hitting 2000dps) @ 8 pellets its 150/pellet or @ 10 it's 120/pellet. I'd suggest having spread that's roughly installation sized @ 130m and half that @ 65m. This should make it still be threatening to infantry but prevent the fun ruining blaster tanks of 1.7 from making a return and it keeps the large turret far more oriented towards av than ai. I'd shorten up those ranges by a lot. Blasters shouldn't be sitting THAT far back. I don't think the ranges are super crazy but I could be wrong. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 198	Posted - 2015.01.27 15:36:00 - [129] - Quote I'm pretty sure 2000 DPS blisters are a little overkill... Should be rails at about 700, missiles 900, blasters at 1100ish. 2000 DPS means tanks and infantry get insta-popped Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2829	Posted - 2015.01.27 16:46:00 - [130] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. It works for infantry, why shouldn't it work for us? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6799	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:02:00 - [131] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. It works for infantry, why shouldn't it work for us? Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2015	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:13:00 - [132] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. It works for infantry, why shouldn't it work for us? This is not a "them vs us" situation, anyone who thinks it is on either side shouldn't be involved here. If you're not willing to behave or discuss things like a rational adult to create a healthy gameplay experience for all involved you need to gtfo because your opinions are neither wanted nor are they constructive. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:19:00 - [133] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: What if somebody is firing at you with a ScR from 60m away and all you are wielding is nova knives and a flaylock? Can't fight back can you? This is the same as if a blaster tank is getting shot at by forges from 200-300m away. He can't fight back. Oh lawd. You're cherry picking specific extreme situations to push your point and it's not going to work. Obviously the Blaster will struggle to fight against a long range weapon, because it's a short range weapon. That's not what we're talking about. What I'm talking about is that if Large Blasters are an AP weapon, a tank driver is capable of easily killing any infantry within the range of the Large Blaster. However infantry are completely incapable of retaliating in any shape or form at any range or situation unless they are using very specific weapons. You're trying to create a situation where a solo tanker can roll around, Immune to like 95% of all the infantry weapons in the game, but be extremely effective against 100% of the infantry in the game. Just no. Large Turrets are AV. Small Turrets are AP. Ratatti has spoken. Get over it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6799	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:20:00 - [134] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. It works for infantry, why shouldn't it work for us? This is not a "them vs us" situation, anyone who thinks it is on either side shouldn't be involved here. If you're not willing to behave or discuss things like a rational adult to create a healthy gameplay experience for all involved you need to gtfo because your opinions are neither wanted nor are they constructive. By the way I posted a pilot suit thread Here. I'd appreciate feedback. it's a very raw bit of work, primarily concerned with allowing dedicated pilots bypass the normal RDV queue. I haven't bothered with racial bonuses because I figure HAV drivers/dropship pilots should cook the racials up. Since it's something you wear inside a vehicle there's no real need for mods. the idea is that pilot suits allow you to spawn DIRECTLY onto the battlefield in your vehicle. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 670	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:33:00 - [135] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. It works for infantry, why shouldn't it work for us? Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4584	Posted - 2015.01.27 17:45:00 - [136] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG Not really sure how a gun that does 1725 damage every 2.25 seconds equates to 2000 DPS.... Time Dilation? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2291	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:09:00 - [137] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What if somebody is firing at you with a ScR from 60m away and all you are wielding is nova knives and a flaylock? Can't fight back can you? This is the same as if a blaster tank is getting shot at by forges from 200-300m away. He can't fight back. Oh lawd. You're cherry picking specific extreme situations to push your point and it's not going to work. Obviously the Blaster will struggle to fight against a long range weapon, because it's a short range weapon. That's not what we're talking about. What I'm talking about is that if Large Blasters are an AP weapon, a tank driver is capable of easily killing any infantry within the range of the Large Blaster. However infantry are completely incapable of retaliating in any shape or form at any range or situation unless they are using very specific weapons. You're trying to create a situation where a solo tanker can roll around, Immune to like 95% of all the infantry weapons in the game, but be extremely effective against 100% of the infantry in the game. Just no. Large Turrets are AV. Small Turrets are AP. Ratatti has spoken. Get over it. 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. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4586	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:19:00 - [138] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 675	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:52:00 - [139] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG Not really sure how a gun that does 1725 damage every 2.25 seconds equates to 2000 DPS.... Time Dilation? 1. It wasnt the question and the answer to the question is correct
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 675	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:53:00 - [140] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What if somebody is firing at you with a ScR from 60m away and all you are wielding is nova knives and a flaylock? Can't fight back can you? This is the same as if a blaster tank is getting shot at by forges from 200-300m away. He can't fight back. Oh lawd. You're cherry picking specific extreme situations to push your point and it's not going to work. Obviously the Blaster will struggle to fight against a long range weapon, because it's a short range weapon. That's not what we're talking about. What I'm talking about is that if Large Blasters are an AP weapon, a tank driver is capable of easily killing any infantry within the range of the Large Blaster. However infantry are completely incapable of retaliating in any shape or form at any range or situation unless they are using very specific weapons. You're trying to create a situation where a solo tanker can roll around, Immune to like 95% of all the infantry weapons in the game, but be extremely effective against 100% of the infantry in the game. Just no. Large Turrets are AV. Small Turrets are AP. Ratatti has spoken. Get over it. 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. 1. Once upon a time it was - It got nerfed

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2836	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:54:00 - [141] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Instagib should be reserved for high alpha weaponry. Railgun body shots. Wait, is that even fair? Probably not. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2836	Posted - 2015.01.27 18:56:00 - [142] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Also, if you run turrets at 2000 DPS and then use a module to allow you to consistently hit infantry I fail to see how this will not cause issues. It's called being rewarded with +50 for a kill because of proper aim. Only you would think that is a good idea. It works for infantry, why shouldn't it work for us? This is not a "them vs us" situation, anyone who thinks it is on either side shouldn't be involved here. If you're not willing to behave or discuss things like a rational adult to create a healthy gameplay experience for all involved you need to gtfo because your opinions are neither wanted nor are they constructive. 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? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6800	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:05:00 - [143] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG Not really sure how a gun that does 1725 damage every 2.25 seconds equates to 2000 DPS.... Time Dilation? 1. It wasnt the question and the answer to the question is correct Ishukone Assault Forge Gun does... drumroll please 303.7974684 sustained DPS before skills. Single magazine DPS is 375. That refire delay attribute that isn't listed anywhere is utterly hilarious. Try again. next time bring math. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2836	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:05:00 - [144] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG Not really sure how a gun that does 1725 damage every 2.25 seconds equates to 2000 DPS.... Time Dilation? Wiyrkomi breach to the rear - 167% damage, on top of everything else. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 678	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:13:00 - [145] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret. 1. FG Not really sure how a gun that does 1725 damage every 2.25 seconds equates to 2000 DPS.... Time Dilation? 1. It wasnt the question and the answer to the question is correct Ishukone Assault Forge Gun does... drumroll please 303.7974684 sustained DPS before skills. Single magazine DPS is 375. That refire delay attribute that isn't listed anywhere is utterly hilarious. Try again. next time bring math. 1. It wasnt the question 2. The question was and still is this - Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret 2a. Name a weapon - It didnt have to include maths 2b. The weapon in question had to do over 2000DPS - A FG does a strike in less than 1second 2c. It had to get 50+ for a kill 3. When using BFG i can kill a target and get 50+ - The strike itselft does over 2000 in less than a second - Didnt have to include charge up time because DPS is a useless stats due to most AV weapons and turrets do not do damage every second [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6802	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:23:00 - [146] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It wasnt the question 2. The question was and still is this - Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret 2a. Name a weapon - It didnt have to include maths 2b. The weapon in question had to do over 2000DPS - A FG does a strike in less than 1second 2c. It had to get 50+ for a kill 3. When using BFG i can kill a target and get 50+ - The strike itselft does over 2000 in less than a second - Didnt have to include charge up time because DPS is a useless stats due to most AV weapons and turrets do not do damage every second We're sorry, the 5 second charge time calls your assertion bullsh*t. That's very slightly more than 400 DPS per shot. Try again. next time bring math. I said Damage Per Second, not "Alpha" Nor "Damage per second as calculated by you trying to obfuscate facts with anecdote again." AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 678	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:25:00 - [147] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. It wasnt the question 2. The question was and still is this - Name a weapon that does 2000 DPS while rewarding people with +50 that isn't a heavy missile turret 2a. Name a weapon - It didnt have to include maths 2b. The weapon in question had to do over 2000DPS - A FG does a strike in less than 1second 2c. It had to get 50+ for a kill 3. When using BFG i can kill a target and get 50+ - The strike itselft does over 2000 in less than a second - Didnt have to include charge up time because DPS is a useless stats due to most AV weapons and turrets do not do damage every second We're sorry, the 5 second charge time calls your assertion bullsh*t. That's very slightly more than 400 DPS per shot. Try again. next time bring math. I said Damage Per Second, not "Alpha" Nor "Damage per second as calculated by you trying to obfuscate facts with anecdote again." 1. Does the FG do damage over 5seconds? [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6802	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:31:00 - [148] - Quote The breach forge takes 5 seconds to fire. Quit being disingenuous. And I must say my petulent pair, that I'm honored you would immortalize me in your signatures in that fashion. Quoting me out of context is so imaginative I'm absolutely bursting with pride in the both of you. Well the one of you, since Lazer is your alt spkr. And quit trying to fake the funk, you're horrifically bad at counterintelligence. Thanks for the absolutely awesome laugh, that makes my day. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 679	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:40:00 - [149] - Quote 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? [quote=Breakin Stuff] Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. [/quote]
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16834	Posted - 2015.01.27 19:43:00 - [150] - 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? 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? "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 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."

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:11:00 - [181] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2293	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:29:00 - [182] - 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. I'm worried that with the current proposal of UHAVs and DHAVs, DHAVs will be obsolete to UHAVs and UHAVs will get nerfed to become the obsolete ones. UHAV: stronger defense, better anti-infantry capabilities DHAV: weaker defense, better anti-vehicle capabilities But here's the real problem: how much of a stronger defense should the UHAV have over the DHAV? And how much better at AV should the DHAV be? Say that the UHAV has twice as strong of a defense, then the DHAV needs at least a 100% damage boost to its large turret to successfully deal with the UHAV. I just fear that DHAVs will be unnecessarily weak and will be popping all over the place while UHAVs will be stomping around, slaughtering infantry and using their better defense to even the playing field against DHAVs. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6815	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:31:00 - [183] - Quote You kidding me? I plan to run DHAVs shamelessly AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:34:00 - [184] - Quote I think the balance will become increasingly more difficult as the roles get more extreme they deviate from the center line standard HAV. I typically take a more conservative approach in cases like this with less hard bonuses and more so softer ones. I think Ratatti's example of "DHAV gets blown up from a single PLC shot" is far too extreme. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16843	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:36:00 - [185] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. That's more than fine but the two iterations of it we have seen....one has been pin point accurate 1000+ DPS anti infantry monster, and the other has been a sub 1000 DPS anti infantry luck fest. Neither of those were......ideal shall we say and they cannot be Anti Tank/Vehicle Guns an still ineffective against infantry if the Heavy Machine Gun archetype is continually applied to the turret. There are numerous different manners that we can circumvent this.... but you and I know these won't change. -One is your shotgun shell Blaster. One one hand its a slower rate of fire with more damage per shot, on the other its a very big shotgun so you "could" engage infantry. -Another is the Autocannon "Large Blaster" we talked about weeks ago which fires a plasma cannon round per second but has a small magazine capacity and faster reload cycle. There are many others that could be considered. I too want tanks to have the means to engage other tanks as a primary role with infantry as a secondary or tertiary target requiring more precise aim to kill. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2293	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:37:00 - [186] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6815	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:40:00 - [187] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? Probably get AV buffed slightly if they're intelligent. But I rarely lead the pack of intelligent predators. I'm usually trying to herd the ******** cats who are too used to calling for nerfs in every game they play AV
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1612	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:43:00 - [188] - 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. What is the point of the Driver? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16845	Posted - 2015.01.27 23:46:00 - [189] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? Driving and Shooting stuff. "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 4592	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:00:00 - [190] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court. I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions. 1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close. 2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage. Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4592	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:05:00 - [191] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? -Main Pilot's Jobs- Use Large Turret to defend against enemy installations and vehicles Use Large Turret to suppress/assist Small Turret Gunners when fighting infantry Driving and Putting the HAV in advantageous positions Positioning HAV so that Small Gunners can have a good LoS Managing modules to regulate and maintain overall vehicle defenses -Small Gunner's Jobs- Primary means to eliminate small targets such as infantry AV Use Small Turrets to assist Large Turret when fighting vehicles/installations Spotting and feeding situation information to the pilot so s/he can make tactical choices on where to move/position the vehicle. The role of the main pilot is not all that different from a Standard Dropship pilot. They maintain the vehicle, keep it safe, and take it where it needs to go. The existence of the large turret does indeed add a level of direct combat to the Main Pilot's role, but that does not innately mean that combat is specifically to fight infantry. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1612	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:06:00 - [192] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? Driving and Shooting stuff. shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2444	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:06:00 - [193] - Quote Would it be possible to have independent turret rotation speeds and use that as a balancing factor? Blasters can spin 360 in 6 seconds, Missiles take 9, Rails take 12? Something like that might help. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16847	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:09:00 - [194] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Would it be possible to have independent turret rotation speeds and use that as a balancing factor? Blasters can spin 360 in 6 seconds, Missiles take 9, Rails take 12? Something like that might help. It might.... and at the same time might not. Dust 514's turret traversal speeds from the missiles and rails are unbearably slow for an FPS game...... not the slowest on tanks I've seen but there aren't infantry units in those games........ "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 16847	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:11:00 - [195] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? Driving and Shooting stuff. shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank. Tanks, Dropships, LAV, Infantry...... whatever you want assuming you have the ability to aim at moving targets. Think Battlefield 4. You could use the Coaxial HMG but why bother? Another tank with two tank shells will have a significantly faster fire rate and almost always **** you up plus if you are using some combination like the Sabot and Cannister Shots you can honestly rack up incredibly infantry kills with a little bit of aim. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1612	Posted - 2015.01.28 00:33:00 - [196] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? -Main Pilot's Jobs- Use Large Turret to defend against enemy installations and vehicles Use Large Turret to suppress/assist Small Turret Gunners when fighting infantry Driving and Putting the HAV in advantageous positions Positioning HAV so that Small Gunners can have a good LoS Managing modules to regulate and maintain overall vehicle defenses -Small Gunner's Jobs- Primary means to eliminate small targets such as infantry AV Use Small Turrets to assist Large Turret when fighting vehicles/installations Spotting and feeding situation information to the pilot so s/he can make tactical choices on where to move/position the vehicle. The role of the main pilot is not all that different from a Standard Dropship pilot. They maintain the vehicle, keep it safe, and take it where it needs to go. The existence of the large turret does indeed add a level of direct combat to the Main Pilot's role, but that does not innately mean that combat is specifically to fight infantry. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2741	Posted - 2015.01.28 01:57:00 - [197] - Quote Harpyja 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. I'm worried that with the current proposal of UHAVs and DHAVs, DHAVs will be obsolete to UHAVs and UHAVs will get nerfed to become the obsolete ones. UHAV: stronger defense, better anti-infantry capabilities DHAV: weaker defense, better anti-vehicle capabilities But here's the real problem: how much of a stronger defense should the UHAV have over the DHAV? And how much better at AV should the DHAV be? Say that the UHAV has twice as strong of a defense, then the DHAV needs at least a 100% damage boost to its large turret to successfully deal with the UHAV. I just fear that DHAVs will be unnecessarily weak and will be popping all over the place while UHAVs will be stomping around, slaughtering infantry and using their better defense to even the playing field against DHAVs. Those numbers are ******* ridiculous click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2741	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:02:00 - [198] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court. I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions. 1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close. 2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage. Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target. Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2741	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:03:00 - [199] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: What is the point of the Driver? Driving and Shooting stuff. shooting stuff like what? If we can't shoot infantry why would anyone even spawn a tank. Which is my point on # 2 click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4593	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:09:00 - [200] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court. I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions. 1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close. 2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage. Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target. Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea. 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16850	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:21:00 - [201] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Or consequently and ideally you aim your anti tank gun at an infantryman and atomise his torso....... Again I maintain that the Large Blaster should be the best large turret to use to kill infantry but it still maintains its primary role of being AV. Small turrets of all types should easily trump the Large Blaster in terms of effectiveness against infantry, but fall short in terms of AV. You have to ask yourself though, will it be alright if skilled pilots use the large blaster to slaughter infantry and at the same time maneuver around to get in close to other HAVs and destroy them as well? Or will infantry start crying foul that blaster HAVs are indestructible and have the large blaster subsequently nerfed? I think "slaughter" is inaccurate to what I'm thinking. More like you can use it against infantry, but you're going to have a hard time doing. At the same time you're far less screwed than say a railgun and trying to deal with infantry at close range. I think you will continue to have issues balancing large blasters properly if the gun maintains its fairly high fire rate type of fire, high bullet damage model. As Mr. Adamance said, we've had the laser-pointer blaster and we've had the "Welp I'll hit him eventually" blaster, as well as iterations in between, none of which have felt like a balanced solution between the two sides of the court. I think we need a fundamental deviation away from this type of weapon altogether, because time has shown that its too problematic to get working properly. I think you can basically take this in one of two directions. 1. Make it fire many many projectiles at once, each with low damage such that the amount of DPS is extremely high if all of the shots land against a large target, but relatively low DPS against a smaller target that only takes a fraction of the shots to the face. It would be easy to hit infantry with this because its a wide area of effect but the damage is fairly low. It would however wreck large targets up close. 2. Make it fire very few projectiles with high bullet damage, but make it difficult to land shots against small targets. This could be be controlled by projectile speed, fire rate, ect. The Plasma Cannon is actually a very good example of an AV weapon that can be used as AP in the right hands, but it's still no easy task. May it be a steady but intermittent steam of accurate shots, or perhaps a burst or cluster of PLC-like shots with each refire, it gives you a weapon that is easy to use against vehicles due to their large hitbox, but also workable against infantry with a skilled direct hit or just bombardment with enough splash damage. Honestly I think I'm warming up to the idea that the Blaster fires PLC-like shots ever 0.5-1.0 seconds in full auto, with a bit wider splash radius than your standard PLC and obviously less direct damage. Bullet drop and everything, but you could put down infantry with this at reasonable ranges. Direct hits would be devastating to infantry, splash enough to make them want to get moving. It requires skill to use against infantry, and isn't so much reliant on luck but more so the ability to predict and track a small moving target. Try hitting a target with a PLC from say 30m off. Now picture that with a large inaccurate turret. That's why I don't like that idea. Imagine a Plasma Cannon with 6 rounds in its magazine, a fair splash damage, quick cycle rate, that fires one single round per second. Much more flexible. You can close with the enemy and lay into them like you want to. You have multiple shots that you can use to test fire arcs and compensate for, and bump dat m/s value and you have a damn solid weapon for the gallente that means that gives them fair range. Though to be fair I still favour the Tri-Barrel and Shotgun shell ideas over this one. "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 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:24:00 - [202] - Quote The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16850	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:28:00 - [203] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire? #BurstFireDIENOW But I suppose its fundamentally the same design since lore wise the rounds of the Tri-Barrel Fire within Microseconds of one another to compound the destructive force of the Hybrid Charges. "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 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:30:00 - [204] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: The tri-shot one would work too, tough the spread and splash would be critical in determining how useful it could be used against infantry. Have you considered a burst-type fire? #BurstFireDIENOW But I suppose its fundamentally the same design since lore wise the rounds of the Tri-Barrel Fire within Microseconds of one another to compound the destructive force of the Hybrid Charges. Well you may understand my concern that if the shots come out in a triangle....theoretically, none of them will hit exactly where you were aiming but rather around the area you were aiming. Another thought I'll steal directly from my Trello card for a Gallente Heavy Weapon Quote: Plasma Caster Gallente Plasma Caster: Area Denial Anti Infantry - Full Auto, Fires PLC-like projectiles forward in a cone with bullet drop mechanics. Direct and Splash Damage are low but affects a large area. Ideally shots will leave a lingering 'burn' effect on the ground which causes Damage over Time for enemies that pass over it. Can be used to discourage entry through choke points, and push enemies out of entrenched positions. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15889	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:32:00 - [205] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16850	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:53:00 - [206] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I've already done that CCP Rattati. No dev response or input. I do appreciate that you want to bring balance to vehicles which is wonderful but I think that I'm personally beginning to see that you wish to take vehicles in a specific direction that's not particularly interesting to me. As such I wish you luck in your development and balancing efforts. Hopefully you can make vehicles balanced and enjoyable for the other players who favour the existing assets. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 15893	Posted - 2015.01.28 02:54:00 - [207] - Quote True Adamance wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I've already done that CCP Rattati. No dev response or input. I do appreciate that you want to bring balance to vehicles which is wonderful but I think that I'm personally beginning to see that you wish to take vehicles in a specific direction that's not particularly interesting to me. As such I wish you luck in your development and balancing efforts. Hopefully you can make vehicles balanced and enjoyable for the other players who favour the existing assets. can you tldr your preferred direction? Truly. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 03:26:00 - [208] - Quote hangs head in shame Sorry about derailing, the creative juices start flowing and sometimes its hard to close the valve. tl;dr Speaking from a purely AV side of the Blaster, it needs to have superior DPS compared to other blasters around the 30-40m range, damage should fall off fairly quickly after that point. It needs to be superior DPS to all other turrets at close range. As for how the firing works in relation to AP, we could look at the more 'shotgun' mentality in that fires many many shots at a high fire rate that do very low damage and spread out. It would be continual fire, not a shotgun, but the effect would be similar. Tankers would actually be able to hit a small target without relying on the luck of dispersion, but relative DPS would be lower due to less shots connecting with a smaller hitbox. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 198	Posted - 2015.01.28 03:26:00 - [209] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I hugely disagree with Missiles turning into 2 long bursts. What we have now is fine IMO, the dispersion is too high to really use the full auto, so I semi auto it, as do most of the other tankers I know that use missiles. You can trust my advice on this, been around for a while, always been a missile tanker Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 291	Posted - 2015.01.28 03:45:00 - [210] - Quote I like the idea of the active dispersion mod and active heat mod. dispersion high slot and heat reduction low slot?

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2742	Posted - 2015.01.28 04:35:00 - [211] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. a still one, sure. If it's moving, good luck. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2742	Posted - 2015.01.28 04:48:00 - [212] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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). click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 787	Posted - 2015.01.28 05:06:00 - [213] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Missiles, can use the dispersion mod, I am still mixed whether Missiles should be 2 long bursts, instead of one hold the button. In terms of personal control over how the missiles currently fire, its perfect already. Sure in an HAV vs HAV fight i would fire off as many as I could. HAVs are not my only target. I don't necessarily want tho throw half a clip or an entire clip at a single proximity mine, or uplink. (TAKE THAT 5,400 DAMAGE YOU NANOHIVE!!) Tagging LAVs and dropships requires placing each missile carefully and leading the taget. The same with the few infantry i manage to nail with it. 12 second reload delay everytime i see a target worth shooting at is crippling at worst, frustrating at best. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction, but I'm struggling to see see any pros for this. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 291	Posted - 2015.01.28 05:07:00 - [214] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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). 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.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2293	Posted - 2015.01.28 06:23:00 - [215] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Is there any chance of giving large missiles slight passive tracking capabilities against vehicles if the initial aim was close enough? This is simply to allow them to actually fight at medium ranges as they are intended to if the large blaster will take the role of CQC AV, instead of being forced into CQC as they are currently and insta-gibbing about half of the vehicles out there. I'd like to see the large missile turret to be more of a medium to long range bombardment turret, providing consistent and reliable burst damage while still lacking as long of an optimal range as the railgun. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 827	Posted - 2015.01.28 06:53:00 - [216] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. i like having CONTROL. so hold the button for me instead of risking blowing a load and missing and now having to reload.
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2493	Posted - 2015.01.28 13:16:00 - [217] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Blaster: Again, if you balance it to be useful for AV, you will make it OP against infantry, especially (WAY especially) if you add in a dispersion mod. Having enough damage to kill vehicles reliably means it's going to wreck infantry. Being balanced against fighting infantry means it doesn't have near the punch it needs in order to kill vehicles. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either redesign it as some have suggested to be AV, or balance it around AI at the expense of AV capability, but don't try and make it do both, because it will either be incredibly OP or laughably weak. Missile: It's a CQC turret simply because the missiles have travel time, so shooting anything outside 100m is moot. Not to mention missiles have falloff (what exactly is the justification for this, btw?) If it's going to be a medium range bombardment turret, then substantially increase missile speed and decrease ROF while retaining full-auto capability. This means it can actually engage at range without having to lead/pray the target doen't change course, and lowers it's DPS to be more in line with this. And remove falloff (seriously, why do they have this?) 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? As far as balancing rails, buff the damage. Way too tired to crunch numbers (sleep eludes me) but I'm talking ~25-35% more alpha than now. Then increase refire rate (making it shoot slower) by ~50%. The railgun should hit HARD, as in an untanked sica/soma should be wrecked in two hits, 3 at most. It should be a monster. But the slow ROF coupled with high heat buildup means it is punishing to miss any of your shots, and ensures it can't kill 3 vehicles in a row without backing off to cooldown. 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 4598	Posted - 2015.01.28 15:13:00 - [218] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1616	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:19:00 - [219] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4604	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:22:00 - [220] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. I always manually tap the trigger too. The full Auto never seemed to work quite right for me. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1250	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:07:00 - [221] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Been reading through some of the discussions going on, and I will say you have most certainly got my attention. Though I'm a bit confused. Why are you maintaining the old idea of what these various turrets are and their roles in the field. I do understand that for a long time now you have been pushing this idea that large turrets are meant only for AV purposes, and equipping smalls is theoretically supposed to fill that gap at the cost of additional infantry on the field. It does make some amount of sense, but from my experience, in practice it never really panned out. What has changed?? I've always wondered why you don't split functionality among large turrets, as it would seem easier to focus on one rather than attempting the complex idea you are trying (and have been) so desperately to accomplish. 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. I mean I do see the issue that those tank would be too powerful against ground AV. But that in itself is very easy to address. Drastically increasing PG/CPU usage on an AI tank turret, would limit "tank" options. Conversely decreasing PG/CPU usage for AV turrets would allow for higher tank ability, moving infantry AV to more of a support against them and not the end to them. Given an AV turret really shouldn't be killing infantry in the first place, this shouldn't be much concern to infantry. An issue I see would be small turrets, but perhaps you could limit them for an AV tank in some way. Sorry, I know I'm not addressing what you are saying, but as a tanker from the old days, this has been tried for so long that I just don't see it as the best direction to take. I don't really like the idea of a blaster being good against other tanks, yet having AI functionality. Missiles to me will still simply go back to underperforming, and rails simply become hill snipers. BTW, agreed rails shouldn't be the end all in the face of other turrets, but with range being so much greater than blasters and more precise than missiles, this will NEVER change. And as far as missiles, either go with several short bursts or back to the single fire. Ever have I hated that full auto crap. Anyways, keep up the good work, I hope you get it right. Tank love is long overdue. Just keep in mind that you actually address the root of these issues and not what outwardly appears to be the problem. As a tanker, I've taken quite the break here and don't intend to come back until changes come about, but I do look forward to positive things for my role. In the meantime, I'll keep on with ol destiny but I'm still with Dust at heart. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4610	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:21:00 - [222] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: 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. 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2743	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:45:00 - [223] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: 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. 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). 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. That seems to be pushing it. Assuming a average eHP of about 10k eHP, HAV's will be dropping in around 5 seconds, and that is going in the opposite direction of what I believe a solid TTK is. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2743	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:54:00 - [224] - Quote 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. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 398	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:55:00 - [225] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Wow, this has been a very messy conversation. Rattati, I would like to contribute something, although I am not an HAV player, and only know these three weapons from the INSTALLATION point of view. But, in all honesty, your team and the fellow players don't make helpfully responding to (or understanding) your subjects very easy for us "outside the circle" players to do. Your initial post in the thread used a wordage and phrasing of someone who's been "locked in the laboratory too many days without rest" "..the AI should be thought of in terms of an active-module" wha? "missile launcher alpha is too extreme" extreme what, too high hp, too high rotation? It took me all 10 pages of the thread, just to verify this is Large Turrets for HAVs you're referring to, and not AI of Installations. LOL. CCP staff and HAVers, pleaseGÇª try no to let your words and phrases get too nerdy and geeky and truncated, or you'll lose the rest of us who are trying to understand, and may have some great ideas to help you. I will try (yikes, TRY) to be helpful if I can Rattati; I think I understand that you are NOT looking for weapon redesigns (your team already has some decisions and redesigns already completed), you just want some adjustment of the core traits we have in the Large Turrets right now: If the Large Rail Turret is the most dedicated AV weapon an HAV carries (meaning it is almost solely meant for killing vehicles and installations at a distance---can't kill infantry efficiently without TONS of patience) then its HP per shot should be reduced just a BIT, its range and rate-of-fire remain the same, its default rotation speed should be increased just enough to give it better tracking of an LAV-fast vehicle in a mid-range encounter and slightly-close encounter. The LAV should still be able to out-circle the Rail Turret in very close-range. Because of its great power, I don't believe a Large Rail should ever have an AI available for it. If the Large Blaster Turret is meant to be me most dedicated INFANTRY suppressor then its dispersion should be reduced enough to SWEEP up a concentration of infantry at mid-range by default, allow AI to be applied that will only make the Blaster to better SUPPRESS (perhaps with very palpable auto-tracking that might achieve one kill per every 5-seconds of continuous fire), and the rotation speed should be increased to enough to track infantry moving at FATTY-speed when in a close-range encounter. NO AI should be applied to close-range encounters. If the LARGE MISSILE Turret is meant to be the ONLY large turret that straddles the gap between anti-vehicle and anti-infantry (meaning it can destroy small vehicles even at its far-range, can only suppress large vehicles and infantry at its far-range, but can efficiently destroy vehicles and infantry in mid-range or closer) then slightly REDUCE the hp damage per missile (so that the driver has to focus all the missiles from his salvo to destroy large vehicles, OR (not both) increase the length of time it takes for the last missile to clear the turret (so infantry and vehicles have more time to evade part of the salvo), increase the turret's rotation nearer to that of the Blaster Turret (so the driver must choose between suppressing a broad area of infantry or concentrating on one target at a time, and retain the 10-missile salvo per trigger-pull (this is a great psychological impact on infantry during suppression fire). AI should apply ONLY to far-range encounters (to improve the ability to suppress even nimble large vehicles like Dropships effectively) (Note, I believe the 10-missile salvo should also be applied to the Missile INSTALLATION in the future) Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2743	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:56:00 - [226] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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. 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? This, and why would there be a big ass turret for a small ass target? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2494	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:50:00 - [227] - Quote 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. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16866	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:01:00 - [228] - 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. Depending on the warhead perhaps super dense materials are involved which affects the standard trajectories of the missiles. For example lore explains the Javelin Hybrid Charge fires a Super Dense Sabot Round....perhaps with gravity applied to their super dense materials they suffer from "in game" trajectories. However again I don't mean to de-rail just a potential explaination. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2296	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:03:00 - [229] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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. 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? 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) "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:17:00 - [230] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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. 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? 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) See I disagree on a few of those points, I think 3 HAVs working together are far more capable of routing enemies due to their ability to engage on multiple lines of sight, whereas a single HAV is effectively limited to one. It's far harder for AV to hide behind cover for multiple directions than it is from just one. Even if 2 small gunners have some minor advantages, I just feel like by allowing Large Turrets to be highly effective against infantry, you're not encouraging the 2-3 man tank enough, which I think needs to be essential if you plan to directly engage infantry. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16866	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:17:00 - [231] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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. 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? 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) That would logically infer that you are using bigger rounds for increased payload. Bigger rounds mean longer chambering time and slower fire rates. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1251	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:38:00 - [232] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: 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. 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? This, and why would there be a big ass turret for a small ass target? Why would it make sense to run 3 solo tanks over one with 2 smalls? I don't think your assumption is entirely true that 3 AP large over shadow 1 large ap with 2 small aps. I've never seen the small turrets as "Pilots turrets" as you claim them to be. They are there for the ground pounders to use to supplement the tanks in taking a position or killing the enemy. All honesty, if there are 3 pilots, why in the world would they not just simply call 3 separate tanks in to begin with!? You certainly confuse me with that statement. While given, 3 pilots can man a single tank, what benefit does this give you. Forgive me if I'm missing something here, I'm currently on a dust 514 vacation. But as far as I know, tanking hasn't changed much at all, if any. Now to answer your question, why wouldn't you use 2 smalls if you have the PG/CPU to do so?? It would help supplement your tank, and give a place for the infantry to hide, assault, and take a position. My question, why do you assume that a large AP turret would be > a small AP turret? What if a large AP was more or less on par with a small AP turret. The point I'm trying to get across, tanks need to play a more diverse role on the field else they will ever be stagnant as they are. By giving the DRIVER the ability to determine what that role is you dramatically increase the amount of tank interaction on the field. Let's just throw out some scenarios: AP large turret vs Infantry, Tank has decent ability to kill infantry nearly as well as a small will, infantry is mostly helpless against it as it is unfazed by conventional firearms. AP large turret plus 2 smalls vs Infantry, A very dangerous set up as now you have 3 deadly turrets to kill with. AP large turret vs AV infantry or AV tanks, against the infantry, the tank is more or less an even match. If the infantry plays his cards right, using high cover, light vehicle, ect, he can easily overcome the tank. With the increased CPU/PG required for tracking and firing protocols associated with hitting small targets, the tank will sacrifice sorely needed durability against AV of all forms. This is how I see match ups going down. AV tank Greater than AI tank AV tank Greater than Infantry AV AV tank ineffective against conventional infantry AI tank greater than Infantry AI tank equal to AV infantry AI tank less than AV tank Given we may need to address the issue of an AV tank using small turrets to overcome their lack of AI abilities. But I'm sure there are solutions for that as well. The main thing with AI Large turrets is that they need to be more on par with infantry. Much shorter ranges, less damage output, slower tracking, ect. I mean simply addressing the issue of range, really gives the infantry AV a superb advantage over an AI tank. But my whole idea gives tanks a purpose among themselves on the field. I imagine PC match ups would run an AI tank for each side, with 2 AV tanks protecting it. AI tank pushes objectives, AV tanks provides cover against other tanks. Both sides run AV infantry that deal with AI tanks rather well. I mean I see a lot of potential in this in really improving tank play. I mean all everything was previously was tank slaughters infantry and holds ground against other tank. What I propose is tank slaughters infantry but can't hold ground against an AV tank nor can it withstand much from the infantry AV. But with the lack of infantry AV or AV tank support, the AI tank is left unchecked to rampage. But more than likely it will have some sort of disadvantage when going into the field, where as all tanks previously that did this did not. That my friend has always been the problem with them. You get basically a suit that is immune to all conventional infantry to infantry play weapons. There was never any considerable disadvantage to them. Yet stripping them of the AI in regards to large turrets (as ALWAYS having 2 extras with you isn't nearly as feasible in practice in my opinion for the overall win) removes the need for an AV tank. And to Godin THEkiller, why not? This is the future is it not! Btw, If you seriously want to openly discuss this more, and I'm def open to it, it might be best to move it to another posting as this might be a bit more off topic of what the dev intends. I honestly don't see the current direction as some overall fix to the situation, but if you have points to the contrary, I would be very much interested to hear them. I do miss typing about dust. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4622	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:52:00 - [233] - Quote 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 "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1251	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:57:00 - [234] - Quote Btw Rattati, I very much love this community and how you interact with the community. You my friend, are what saved Dust! I spend a lot of time with the destiny forums, but never actually do anything other than read postings. As the only thing that will be read is what's "trending" and even then it seems to me that the voice is mostly not listened to. You have done a wonderful job buddy, and sorry I kinda called you out that one time back when you were just a player working in the finance field or whatever it was you did! It certainly wasn't your place and if you had been here all along, dust would have been MUCH further along. I hope they pay you well for all of this!!! Sorry off topic since I haven't been spending a lot of time here, I figure I should give you this shout out. I really love how you have progressed this game! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1251	Posted - 2015.01.29 00:23:00 - [235] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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 So the jist of what you are saying is that a large turret shouldn't outperform a small turret in the AI department but neither should a Small turret over shadow a large turret. What problems do you see with a large turret that is on par with a small turret in regards to AP? The way I see it, the small turrets should be there to supplement the role of the large turret, not simply determine it. My issue is that if a lone tanker can't effectively deal with infantry, then you lessen the need for an AV turret, even in the presence of smalls that are supposed to fill the gap. Thing is, tankers are not going to ALWAYS run gunners. I've play lone wolf in pubs and I ALWAYS have smalls on. From what I have found is that most infantry are uninterested in using them, and those that do don't tip the balance enough in my favor to actually make me a discernible threat on the field requiring the need for AV tanks (and even if there is one out, I hold a significant advantage over it anyways). Let me just ask you this, what is it that you view is wrong with tanks? For me, I see them as not having a discernable role given to them to require the need for tank on tank interactions. Back when the tank changes hit that made them OP, I took it upon myself to run the AV portion. I skipped over infantry, rarely caring for them in the least, and focused on all of those tanks on the field gunning down infantry. With me on the field, I was able to completely turn the tide of battles single handly. But best of all, I had a lot of reason to pull out my tank, and plenty of other tanks to shoot. Since they have toned down the blaster though, that fun evaporated. No longer could I go out with the intent of going purely AV as many times there weren't any to be found, and those that were there, really served no purpose to the outcome to a match. Us tankers might as well have our own game mode, as we really weren't needed in matchups. I was forced to play ADS as PC matchups no longer really need tankers, as they didn't hold the advantage that a forge gun couldn't fill. And if needed the forger could go HMG and actually make an impact on the outcome of a battle if need be. Where tanks were just there for mostly nostalgic reasons. And I mention PC because the very nature of the PUB is unbalanced to begin with, and there will always be someone at a disadvantage, which is not always the result of a particular thing being unbalanced but due to the lack of a team not having roles balanced out. So I ask, Why do you think that tanks need changes in the first place? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4623	Posted - 2015.01.29 01:26:00 - [236] - Quote 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? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2297	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:09:00 - [237] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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... "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4624	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:53:00 - [238] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2297	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:32:00 - [239] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Harpyja wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4624	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:54:00 - [240] - Quote 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. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

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 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) 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

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2760	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:18:00 - [271] - 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. i would say that blasters and missiles are swapping places in this, and that kind of TTK isn't what we're asking for. We want it to go up, not down. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6876	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:19:00 - [272] - Quote Godin Thekiller 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. i would say that blasters and missiles are swapping places in this, and that kind of TTK isn't what we're asking for. We want it to go up, not down. Blaster DPS in my chart is actually lower than current slightly Godin. AV
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1253	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:19:00 - [273] - Quote Turrets and Tanks There is talk of changing up turrets as some are overperforming, others underperforming, and some confused on what they want to be. What ever shall we do! Well for starters let's look at rails. Rails Overperforming much? Maybe just a little or maybe it just seems that way. Rails can fill the role of anti AV (at most any range) with limited AI functionality. They are in my opinion very versatile and definitely a favorite of mine. But let's ask why, and how this makes them a possible over performer. Range - It's the ultimate ranged weapon. It's a sniper mounted to a TANK. This is something I feel doesn't get enough attention, and unless it does, it will forever hold it's glory or be nerfed into oblivion. The problem with rails atm as is seen by Rattati, is that it's too good in close range. To that I say DUHHH. The issue here is that you have not focused on what is it's greatest strength! Not addressing that range is the issue will lead you to further increasing the heat cost, reducing the number of shots, thereby making it an extremely long process to drop anything. Meaning brawling with a blaster or missile will most certainly mean short and swift death. But I feel that not only hurts it in CQC, but also at range. What good is this AV weapon if I can't kill something unless I get a full 20 seconds to beat on it. A lot happens in this time and forever will kills slip away from a railer. A good thing, yes. But what if I want to actually kill something and not just be a support AV weapon. As range increases, you need to increase the time it takes to make a kill. Conversely, as you decrease range, decrease the TTK. I would rather see this done with Damage per shot, than I would heat cost, but best of all, I want it seen doing both with different turrets. A rail at a range 400 M, making small, but consistent damage, or a rail doing large damage but over longer period of time then we have now. So I'm saying yes it's a good idea to increase heat cost, but not a favorite of mine as you will just make rail tanks redline snipers without giving them what THEY NEED. An option to brawl that is. Options are limitless here. Brawler rails: Moderate damage, high ROF, low heat cost. Consider adjusting ammo for additional balancing options. High damage, low ROF, moderate heat cost. Consider ammo per clip for additional balancing options. Long range rails: Low damage, High ROF, lower heat cost. Higher than normal ammo per clip. High damage, low ROF, High heat cost. Lowest ammo per clip. Honestly, turret variety is sorely needed and missed, and I think will help you along with balancing tanks as a whole. Too much is trying to be done with too little, in my opinion of course. Blasters Some would say these are the underperformers. Wholly disagree. They work really good against shield tanks! The issue here is range, AGAIN. But something else needs to be considered along with it, AI functionality. While I can get kills with a rail, a blaster has much more potential in making the kills. I say potential because I'm not the greatest killing infantry. Just not my thing, but something I'm working on improving in the future. I have seen people slaughter infantry with them, even in their current state. And over a rail, at the very least I can damage infantry far more effectively than I can with a rail. So considering the AI functionality, I would say no, they ARE NOT UNDER PERFORMING. If you want a blaster to perform well against other armor, then they should lose much of this functionality, much like you did with rails and splash damage. There is talk of using an active modules to increase AI functionality, by reducing dispersion. So if they are to kill infantry, much easier than they do now, why in the world do you want them performing in the AV department as well. Not to mention that a module decreasing dispersion not only helps against infantry BUT OTHER VEHICLES AS WELL. Thing is, we had blaster that not only killed infantry but other tanks with ease. It made blasters king and severely skewed usage for many top players to use only those due to the immense diversity they offered. I say focus on one or the other. But not to say that you can't go with a module to improve AI ability. But it would again be best to offer diversity in turrets (I know this my not mesh with the grand master plan Rattati has but maybe it can give some ideas). Just an example of how this could work. AP Low damage, high RoF, built in active dispersion module - Increase TTK against infantry but make it very possible make the kill. AV Higher damage, low RoF, lots of dispersion, no module - Hits harder, but nearly impossible to make a kill against infantry, good against other tanks. Dispersion makes it hard to hit another tank at optimal, might need to be addressed in some way. I'll add more in the future but that is it for now. I would very much like to see some diversity though come to turret types. Don't know if that is even in the game plan but I feel it really should be if you actually want to balance out and emphasize the differences between them. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6876	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:32:00 - [274] - Quote hey Tebu, why don't you have a look at a couple of the spreadsheets floating around in this thread? A couple of them address rails, and missiles, and blasters... AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2760	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:30:00 - [275] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller 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. i would say that blasters and missiles are swapping places in this, and that kind of TTK isn't what we're asking for. We want it to go up, not down. Blaster DPS in my chart is actually lower than current slightly Godin. I was referring to current proposed numbers. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 198	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:11:00 - [276] - Quote One of the main problems of small turrets is the hardener. When hardener is active it obscures the crosshair for small gunners. And if the hardener is on I probably need my small gunners the most at that moment. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1628	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:33:00 - [277] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Blasters aren't the worst AV right now.. I rather them being more like large turrets than preforming like souped up versions of infantry weapons. The Blaster should be a slow firing heavy hitting weapon with the clip of about 75. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6878	Posted - 2015.01.31 10:56:00 - [278] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Blasters aren't the worst AV right now.. I rather them being more like large turrets than preforming like souped up versions of infantry weapons. The Blaster should be a slow firing heavy hitting weapon with the clip of about 75. Blasters are extremely situational and borderline useless on gallente hulls. The caldari hulls can easily fit any turret but they still perform overall better at all ranges in all situations except in the case of a few niche players who enjoy being the underdog. AV
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2509	Posted - 2015.01.31 11:08:00 - [279] - Quote Breakin, one point of contention. Are you sure your blaster damage is enough to stop shield regen? No point in any amount of dps if it can't do that. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6880	Posted - 2015.01.31 11:12:00 - [280] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breakin, one point of contention. Are you sure your blaster damage is enough to stop shield regen? No point in any amount of dps if it can't do that. 800 dps will stop shield regen I'm pretty sure. What's the minimum damage threshold again? Adjusting the numbers to do that isn't hard. I made them consistent so the whole weapon line can ba modular and adjusted evenly across the board. AV

THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1371	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:29:00 - [281] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 800 dps will stop shield regen I'm pretty sure. What's the minimum damage threshold again? Adjusting the numbers to do that isn't hard. I made them consistent so the whole weapon line can ba modular and adjusted evenly across the board. I got you Gunnlogi wrote: "mVICProp.minDamageToCauseShieldRechargePause": 102 e: Worth considering how this scales with hardeners. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. 21 day EVE trial.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1253	Posted - 2015.01.31 18:08:00 - [282] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. Blasters aren't the worst AV right now.. I rather them being more like large turrets than preforming like souped up versions of infantry weapons. The Blaster should be a slow firing heavy hitting weapon with the clip of about 75. Blasters are extremely situational and borderline useless on gallente hulls. The caldari hulls can easily fit any turret but they still perform overall better at all ranges in all situations except in the case of a few niche players who enjoy being the underdog. Borderline useless on gallente hulls?? WAAAHH I find this VERY short sighted. While I agree that due to fitting abilities, a gunnlogi is often superior, but only due to the fact that they can easily use small turrets and duel tank. IF ANYTHING, that is what needs to be addressed first and foremost. Naming the blaster as the reason the maddie underperforms is just dead wrong. I've read a bit of what people have been saying and truly I feel you are way off base here. For one, a blaster will shred a shield tank. And match up a shield blaster to an armor blaster, armor should win hands down. Not to mention the fact the blaster holds superior AI abilities. Let me mention some reasons for this from my immense experience using tanks. Armor takes less damage per shot from blaster fire than a shield that receives more. While slow to turn, an armor tank has superior top speed. Using a nitro, you can easily negate range advantages of other turrets and tank types. Rail of course being more difficult, but the range advantage should be kept in mind when engaging one. Armor tends to have a much higher eHP over a shield tank, not to mention much more turret depression. While I say yes the gunnlogi is most certainly superior at the moment, this is NOT DUE TO TURRET BALANCE BUT HULL BALANCE. And another thing that you fail to recognize is the fact that it's superior in it's AI capabilities over other turret types. This fact alone lends no credence to the idea that a blaster should be superior in the AV department at close range. Blasters had the best of both worlds, and I thought we established a LONG time ago that this is counterproductive to balancing tanks. Things that would need to be addressed for armor are as follows: Total CPU is too low. I have maxed proficiency skills for most everything, and still struggle to just fit a full proto maddie (ie can't do it). CPU is the major limiting factor. PG/CPU comparison on modules between shield and armor, seem way off. Armor modules need adjustments to fall more in line with shield counterparts. Engineering modules need to be looked at. They take low slot space, and are crucial to a shield tank that wants to fit for high shield defense. Conversely, on an armor tank, low slot space is your defense space. Meaning you will never match a gunnlogi in fitting capacity if this is to remain as it is. Addressing these issues would give the maddie more overall options for fitting a decent defense while maintaining offensive capabilities using small turrets or just all proto modules for their armor slots. Why they can't already do this is just insane to me. Anyways fellas, try to keep this in mind when you go about talking about where the root of a problem lay. Many are looking in what I feel is the wrong direction, and by doing that you are just going to hurt tanks more as a whole. I actually prefer using a blaster madrudger over my shielded one. A blaster madrudger is far superior in the AI department, and stands up very well against a shield blaster. Now if I could fit it like I fit my gunnlogi, with double pro extenders and a pro hardener, the thing would be unstoppable to any shield tank on the field. Even those with a railgun would have to think twice attempting to brawl with one. (Also, something that HAS to be consider is how most all forms of AV gain damage bonuses to armor. Without shield varieties of AV, a maddie will always falter to the superior infantry AV defense that is shields.) Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6895	Posted - 2015.01.31 18:49:00 - [283] - Quote The point. You missed it. I'm not a tanker. I'm helping get them fixed. So get off your high horse. The blaster isn't the cause, it just doesn't improve the armor tanks in any way In fact currently the blaster is outclassed in all ways at all ranges by rails and missiles. But I'm sure you skipped to the end and ignored all the discussion along the way in your eagerness to correct me with your wall of not-helping the topic text. AV
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1253	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:17:00 - [284] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The point. You missed it. I'm not a tanker. I'm helping get them fixed. So get off your high horse. The blaster isn't the cause, it just doesn't improve the armor tanks in any way In fact currently the blaster is outclassed in all ways at all ranges by rails and missiles. But I'm sure you skipped to the end and ignored all the discussion along the way in your eagerness to correct me with your wall of not-helping the topic text. I still find your current statement wrong. As a tanker I can tell you it just isn't true. And no high horse here fella, you clearly took it wrong. But I will say that not being a tanker yourself, you will find it hard to believe me when I say blasters are not "outclassed" as you make it out to be. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 297	Posted - 2015.01.31 20:46:00 - [285] - Quote Blasters mess shields up fast.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1375	Posted - 2015.01.31 21:13:00 - [286] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Blasters mess shields up fast. Unless they get two hardeners on before you get the first shot. The only chance you have is that a blue hits them with something to break their regen. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. 21 day EVE trial.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1255	Posted - 2015.01.31 21:27:00 - [287] - Quote THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Blasters mess shields up fast. Unless they get two hardeners on before you get the first shot. The only chance you have is that a blue hits them with something to break their regen. Interesting, I never found the double hardeners nearly as effective as stacking HP with a single hardener. At max with double hardeners you get 30 seconds, leaving you very vulnerable afterwards. I thought though that double stacking hardeners didn't make you invulnerable to blaster fire. Thought this was fixed quite a while ago. Double hardeners used to be a big thing, and last I tried which was after changes to the rail and such, it wasn't nearly as strong as it used to be. Even against blaster fire. Been a while since I messed with it though. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:06:00 - [288] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Blasters mess shields up fast. Unless they get two hardeners on before you get the first shot. The only chance you have is that a blue hits them with something to break their regen. Interesting, I never found the double hardeners nearly as effective as stacking HP with a single hardener. At max with double hardeners you get 30 seconds, leaving you very vulnerable afterwards. I thought though that double stacking hardeners didn't make you invulnerable to blaster fire. Thought this was fixed quite a while ago. Double hardeners used to be a big thing, and last I tried which was after changes to the rail and such, it wasn't nearly as strong as it used to be. Even against blaster fire. Been a while since I messed with it though. And a rail or missile can't break a Maddy in 30 seconds? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6910	Posted - 2015.02.01 13:08:00 - [289] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Blasters mess shields up fast. Unless they get two hardeners on before you get the first shot. The only chance you have is that a blue hits them with something to break their regen. Interesting, I never found the double hardeners nearly as effective as stacking HP with a single hardener. At max with double hardeners you get 30 seconds, leaving you very vulnerable afterwards. I thought though that double stacking hardeners didn't make you invulnerable to blaster fire. Thought this was fixed quite a while ago. Double hardeners used to be a big thing, and last I tried which was after changes to the rail and such, it wasn't nearly as strong as it used to be. Even against blaster fire. Been a while since I messed with it though. And a rail or missile can't break a Maddy in 30 seconds? closer to 3 AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:39:00 - [290] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: THUNDERGROOVE wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Blasters mess shields up fast. Unless they get two hardeners on before you get the first shot. The only chance you have is that a blue hits them with something to break their regen. Interesting, I never found the double hardeners nearly as effective as stacking HP with a single hardener. At max with double hardeners you get 30 seconds, leaving you very vulnerable afterwards. I thought though that double stacking hardeners didn't make you invulnerable to blaster fire. Thought this was fixed quite a while ago. Double hardeners used to be a big thing, and last I tried which was after changes to the rail and such, it wasn't nearly as strong as it used to be. Even against blaster fire. Been a while since I messed with it though. And a rail or missile can't break a Maddy in 30 seconds? closer to 3 My point. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2302	Posted - 2015.02.01 15:41:00 - [291] - Quote The thing is though that blasters in their current form are better optimized for AI than AV. They were better for AI before infantry cried to get it nerfed (which, I think was stupid because I almost never had problems with blaster HAVs when I was running infantry; large blasters still needed aiming as much as any other weapon). "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1256	Posted - 2015.02.01 18:11:00 - [292] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: And a rail or missile can't break a Maddy in 30 seconds? closer to 3 My point. ?? Can you please elaborate so I understand your point a bit better? You go about mentioning a maddie, while additionally speaking of turret types. Why is it that you assume it's the blaster as cause for the problems, and not the madrudger hull itself? What do you see happening if we address supposed problems with the hull itself AND the blaster. Or what is to happen if we simply address blasters as the root of the problem and go from there? If blasters are not the cause of much of the disparity between the two tanks, you will have fixed nothing. If you go about "fixing" both, you run a serious risk of simply shifting the power from one to the other. Something that has been done OVER AND OVER. If a blaster can't break a double hardened gunnlogi's regen (which I have a hard time believing and will be testing this in the field later), then I don't see the problem inherent in the blaster itself, but the gunnlogi being a bit over the top. My point in all this is before you go about addressing turrets, you must address the hulls they are attached to first and foremost. This will have a bigger impact overall and to me is the root of much of the problems. And it also must be noted that the blaster is a very effective AI and AI support weapon, I would say more so than the other two turret types. Let me just take a moment and compare my blaster fittings between my armor and shields. Gunnlogi High: 2x complex shield extender ---- 1x complex shield hardener Low: 1x Pg enhancer ----- 1x CPU enhancer Turrets : Large Pro blaster ---- 2 pro small rails Madrudger High: 1x nitro Low: 1x armor hardener ----- 1x complex plate ---- 1x enchanted repper OR 1x basic plate --- 1x complex plate ---- 1x enhanced repper Turret: Large Pro blaster Now tell me, is it truly the blaster that should give most cause for concern? This is with maxed proficiency skills in everything that I have equipped. Now just to assume a situation I have been in with my maddie: Madrudger VS one rail gunnlogi and one blaster gunnlogi - Result, madrudger lost. What happened here you ask. I tried to take on two tanks at once that's what! I was using my double plated fit for this one. Engagement happened at the entrance to a city. Blaster was in the rear position, rail had just moved out of the gates and into the forward position. I move up on the rail, as it was the largest threat to my armor, and engage. Unfortunately I couldn't break LOS on the blaster but I did manage to drop the rail to a sliver of armor health before I went down. Though had the additional tank not have been there things would have gone rather predictably. The rail would have lost hands down. He had dropped three rounds in me, managed a fourth while avoiding overheat, but by this point he was nearly dead, with no other options but to attempt a retreat but more than likely simply die to my blaster fire. While myself would have been able to at least sustain the last shot that would put it into overheat. I assumed by the time that it took to drop it's shields, it was running extenders with a single hardener. Then again it could have been double hardened as I got the jump on it and had health down to half before it could react with it's hardener. Thing is, I didn't even use my full advantages, given the position of the other tank. Turret tracking. Generally when I go about engaging a rail with a blaster, whether I'm in my shield tank or not, I move to negate their range advantage first and foremost. Once in close, it's very easy to outrack that ever so slow turret, avoiding fire from it and giving you the time to apply needed DPS. I very much like doing this with a madrudger as they do have some very nice top speed, made noticeable with a nitro. By watching the turret position, I can angle my approach so that the rail will have a very hard time keeping up with me. While I don't have any problems tracking him at that high speed. Yes I don't always make it but the outcome is often very close. Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 21:05:00 - [293] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster. I'm just going to skip the above ** as it's unnecessary that makes no sense. First off, I can say that most people here has said several times that Large turrets shouldn't be MADE to be AI as it's primary function, and rather Anti big **. Blasters are currently the opposite, which is why people wants it to be changed. Futhermore, you say that YOU think that blasters are good at AV, yet both the opinions of several people here as well as the math behind these changes says otherwise. You're quite literally using the argument of "I think it's fine, therefore it shouldn't change" when several others says otherwise. You might have a argument if say everyone who said otherwise didn't even pilot or know the ins and outs of piloting, but no, most here is either a pilot as a main, or has a pilot alt. Lastly, saying that "Rails will be forever be better AV than blasters" is silly. Why should they? I don't think you get the point of this thread. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2303	Posted - 2015.02.01 22:27:00 - [294] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster. I'm just going to skip the above ** as it's unnecessary that makes no sense. First off, I can say that most people here has said several times that Large turrets shouldn't be MADE to be AI as it's primary function, and rather Anti big **. Blasters are currently the opposite, which is why people wants it to be changed. Futhermore, you say that YOU think that blasters are good at AV, yet both the opinions of several people here as well as the math behind these changes says otherwise. You're quite literally using the argument of "I think it's fine, therefore it shouldn't change" when several others says otherwise. You might have a argument if say everyone who said otherwise didn't even pilot or know the ins and outs of piloting, but no, most here is either a pilot as a main, or has a pilot alt. Lastly, saying that "Rails will be forever be better AV than blasters" is silly. Why should they? I don't think you get the point of this thread. I personally think that in general, large blasters should have better AI capabilities than the other large turrets and lesser AV capabilities than the other large turrets. It could be done by relative damage output, by relative optimal engagement ranges, etc. As long as it can fit itself on the AI-AV spectrum as Pokey has mentioned a while back: (In order of increasing/decreasing AV/AI): small blaster, missile, railgun, large blaster, missile, railgun. There needs to be an escalation in order to bring out missile and railgun HAVs, and I see the large blaster as the first step in the escalation. A HAV fitted primarily for AI will pose a big threat to enemy infantry (at the expense of being susceptible to enemy vehicles), and this will cause the enemy team to start fielding AV oriented HAVs. I see it no different from an infantryman with a rifle being susceptible to enemy vehicles, or an AV infantryman being susceptible to enemy infantry. In short, there needs to be a way for vehicles to pose a direct threat to infantry. Without that, they have no purpose beyond transport and WP for the enemy. I see pilots as removing themselves from the position to capture objectives, but should instead help their fellow infantry to capture objectives by putting pressure on the enemy infantry. Then you get other pilots removing themselves from the infantry battle in order to engage the enemy vehicle that's putting pressure on infantry. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:00:00 - [295] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster. I'm just going to skip the above ** as it's unnecessary that makes no sense. First off, I can say that most people here has said several times that Large turrets shouldn't be MADE to be AI as it's primary function, and rather Anti big **. Blasters are currently the opposite, which is why people wants it to be changed. Futhermore, you say that YOU think that blasters are good at AV, yet both the opinions of several people here as well as the math behind these changes says otherwise. You're quite literally using the argument of "I think it's fine, therefore it shouldn't change" when several others says otherwise. You might have a argument if say everyone who said otherwise didn't even pilot or know the ins and outs of piloting, but no, most here is either a pilot as a main, or has a pilot alt. Lastly, saying that "Rails will be forever be better AV than blasters" is silly. Why should they? I don't think you get the point of this thread. I personally think that in general, large blasters should have better AI capabilities than the other large turrets and lesser AV capabilities than the other large turrets. It could be done by relative damage output, by relative optimal engagement ranges, etc. As long as it can fit itself on the AI-AV spectrum as Pokey has mentioned a while back: (In order of increasing/decreasing AV/AI): small blaster, missile, railgun, large blaster, missile, railgun. There needs to be an escalation in order to bring out missile and railgun HAVs, and I see the large blaster as the first step in the escalation. A HAV fitted primarily for AI will pose a big threat to enemy infantry (at the expense of being susceptible to enemy vehicles), and this will cause the enemy team to start fielding AV oriented HAVs. I see it no different from an infantryman with a rifle being susceptible to enemy vehicles, or an AV infantryman being susceptible to enemy infantry. In short, there needs to be a way for vehicles to pose a direct threat to infantry. Without that, they have no purpose beyond transport and WP for the enemy. I see pilots as removing themselves from the position to capture objectives, but should instead help their fellow infantry to capture objectives by putting pressure on the enemy infantry. Then you get other pilots removing themselves from the infantry battle in order to engage the enemy vehicle that's putting pressure on infantry. Pokey's reasoning of saying that blasters was the worst large turret for AV is because they would have the shortest range of any HAV. That does not make them the worst turret however. On a large open map with no cover in sight, sure. But in a map with lots of cover, they would preform MUCH better than say a rail. Why should I forced to use a Rail if I want to be AV? Why can't I be short range AV? Hell, why can't all Large turrets be equal in strength in their own territories? Why should I use a big ass turret for a tiny target? You need to take these questions into account. Otherwise, it will make little sense. EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:01:00 - [296] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster. I'm just going to skip the above ** as it's unnecessary that makes no sense. First off, I can say that most people here has said several times that Large turrets shouldn't be MADE to be AI as it's primary function, and rather Anti big **. Blasters are currently the opposite, which is why people wants it to be changed. Futhermore, you say that YOU think that blasters are good at AV, yet both the opinions of several people here as well as the math behind these changes says otherwise. You're quite literally using the argument of "I think it's fine, therefore it shouldn't change" when several others says otherwise. You might have a argument if say everyone who said otherwise didn't even pilot or know the ins and outs of piloting, but no, most here is either a pilot as a main, or has a pilot alt. Lastly, saying that "Rails will be forever be better AV than blasters" is silly. Why should they? I don't think you get the point of this thread. Because rails, which outrange everything else, will always be a superior option to something that needs to be within 75 meters to cause any significant damage. There are so many more options when your engagement zone is within 300 meters over 75 (greater than that yes but dispersion plays a large role in preventing this). I never said blasters are good at AV (or as you say "I think it's fine"). Not good in the way you mean. Considering their dual purposes of being AI and AV, they shouldn't be good at one or the other as people think they should be. And the way I understand it, rattati was talking about giving the large blaster AI capabilities, through the active module. In which case they shouldn't even be considered to be greater than a dedicated AV large turret like the rail. Get my drift? Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for going against the conventional train of thought. I have my own thoughts that clearly don't mesh with the mainstream going around. I say the large blaster should be made AI, with limited AV capabilities, or AV with limited AI capabilities. But in the latter, they will still always falter to a rail. Range is a huge determining factor and very easy to use to your advantage against something that can't even shoot back. Most often, even when blasters were king, the best way to deal with them was always the rail, where a blaster would always struggle against a rail that used the greatest advantage range, to their benefit. No matter how strong you make the blaster, a rail with range will always be greater. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:16:00 - [297] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? What is it that you are saying then? Are you saying the large turret should be focused on killing HAV's solely or AI solely? In any case, having one that does AI gives rise to a purpose for the AV. Else why call a tank in as all they can do is kill other vehicles that doesn't contribute to a win overall in any capacity. Better off running infantry and playing the points. Given gunners can make this possible, it just doesn't seem to pan out the way it should. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:26:00 - [298] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Point is, I see the blaster for what it is (Decent AI support with Good AV capabilities), understand it's advantages and disadvantages and use all of this to succeed with it. Though when it comes to tank vs tank, rails are and forever will be better, as it's a mostly dedicated AV weapon, unlike the blaster. I'm just going to skip the above ** as it's unnecessary that makes no sense. First off, I can say that most people here has said several times that Large turrets shouldn't be MADE to be AI as it's primary function, and rather Anti big . Blasters are currently the opposite, which is why people wants it to be changed. Futhermore, you say that YOU think that blasters are good at AV, yet both the opinions of several people here as well as the math behind these changes says otherwise. You're quite literally using the argument of "I think it's fine, therefore it shouldn't change" when several others says otherwise. You might have a argument if say everyone who said otherwise didn't even pilot or know the ins and outs of piloting, but no, most here is either a pilot as a main, or has a pilot alt. Lastly, saying that "Rails will be forever be better AV than blasters" is silly. Why should they? I don't think you get the point of this thread. Because rails, which outrange everything else, will always be a superior option to something that needs to be within 75 meters to cause any significant damage. There are so many more options when your engagement zone is within 300 meters over 75 (greater than that yes but dispersion plays a large role in preventing this). I never said blasters are good at AV (or as you say "I think it's fine"). Not good in the way you mean. Considering their dual purposes of being AI and AV, they shouldn't be good at one or the other as people think they should be. And the way I understand it, rattati was talking about giving the large blaster AI capabilities, through the active module. In which case they shouldn't even be considered to be greater than a dedicated AV large turret like the rail. Get my drift? Look, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for going against the conventional train of thought. I have my own thoughts that clearly don't mesh with the mainstream going around. I say the large blaster should be made AI, with limited AV capabilities, or AV with limited AI capabilities. But in the latter, they will still always falter to a rail. Range is a huge determining factor and very easy to use to your advantage against something that can't even shoot back. Most often, even when blasters were king, the best way to deal with them was always the rail, where a blaster would always struggle against a rail that used the greatest advantage range, to their benefit. No matter how strong you make the blaster, a rail with range will always be greater. 1: That is only valid on flat surfaces with no cover AT ALL. That simply doesn't exist. On top of that, Rail alpha will be high, but DPS low, so missing (which is a thing) will hurt it. It's not superior in every circumstance, which is what I've been asking for, including hulls and pretty much everything else in the game. 2: Seeing as it makes little to no ***** sense that a large turret be made to shoot at tiny targets, I reject that. I'm pretty sure many others does as well. Not only does it not make a lick of logical sense, it devalues Gallente's main weapon of choice for a AV platform, it devalues small turrets on said HAV's, and it makes it to where it's harder for anything to counter shield tanked HAV's. 3: It's good that you have your own opinion. That means that you're an independent person at least on a concussions level. That doesn't mean that your opinion is a valid one. Say for example you think feminism is great. I would say that you're an idiot, and egalitarian is the correct way to go. 4: A rail with range on a blaster is only valid if that Rail can keep range on said blaster. As soon as it loses that advantage, game over, which is why it isn't "superior". It should never always falter, the skill of the pilot should determine that. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:33:00 - [299] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? What is it that you are saying then? Are you saying the large turret should be focused on killing HAV's solely or AI solely? In any case, having one that does AI gives rise to a purpose for the AV. Else why call a tank in as all they can do is kill other vehicles that doesn't contribute to a win overall in any capacity. Better off running infantry and playing the points. Given gunners can make this possible, it just doesn't seem to pan out the way it should. I did not imply either, you did. I asked what I asked. Why should a HAV be based around killing infantry, then other HAV's based around killing said HAV's? It would just lead to HAV's killing HAV's just to kill HAV's; there's no point in it. Infantry HAS a goal: hack everything, and kill whatever tries to take such things. Vehicles in general have nothing of the sort. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.01 23:49:00 - [300] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? What is it that you are saying then? Are you saying the large turret should be focused on killing HAV's solely or AI solely? In any case, having one that does AI gives rise to a purpose for the AV. Else why call a tank in as all they can do is kill other vehicles that doesn't contribute to a win overall in any capacity. Better off running infantry and playing the points. Given gunners can make this possible, it just doesn't seem to pan out the way it should. I did not imply either, you did. I asked what I asked. Why should a HAV be based around killing infantry, then other HAV's based around killing said HAV's? It would just lead to HAV's killing HAV's just to kill HAV's; there's no point in it. Infantry HAS a goal: hack everything, and kill whatever tries to take such things. Vehicles in general have nothing of the sort. You are right, Tanks have no goal. But how is making the strictly AV to give them roles? If all they do is kill other tanks, why is there need for them on the field? Might as well have your own tank game mode, as infantry will have no use for you as you aren't adding anything to the battle. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.02 00:02:00 - [301] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: EDIT: Also, why should HAV's be based around killing Infantry, or killing other HAV's? What is the point of that? What is it that you are saying then? Are you saying the large turret should be focused on killing HAV's solely or AI solely? In any case, having one that does AI gives rise to a purpose for the AV. Else why call a tank in as all they can do is kill other vehicles that doesn't contribute to a win overall in any capacity. Better off running infantry and playing the points. Given gunners can make this possible, it just doesn't seem to pan out the way it should. I did not imply either, you did. I asked what I asked. Why should a HAV be based around killing infantry, then other HAV's based around killing said HAV's? It would just lead to HAV's killing HAV's just to kill HAV's; there's no point in it. Infantry HAS a goal: hack everything, and kill whatever tries to take such things. Vehicles in general have nothing of the sort. You are right, Tanks have no goal. But how is making the strictly AV to give them roles? If all they do is kill other tanks, why is there need for them on the field? Might as well have your own tank game mode, as infantry will have no use for you as you aren't adding anything to the battle. Anti-big "things", and not strictly, more of suppression weapons, making HAV's without adecuate support w/e small turrets and/or infantry have difficult time dealing with AV. YOu know, balance between AV and HAV's. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.02 00:03:00 - [302] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That is only valid on flat surfaces with no cover AT ALL. That simply doesn't exist. On top of that, Rail alpha will be high, but DPS low, so missing (which is a thing) will hurt it. It's not superior in every circumstance, which is what I've been asking for, including hulls and pretty much everything else in the game. 2: Seeing as it makes little to no ******* sense that a large turret be made to shoot at tiny targets, I reject that. I'm pretty sure many others does as well. Not only does it not make a lick of logical sense, it devalues Gallente's main weapon of choice for a AV platform, it devalues small turrets on said HAV's, and it makes it to where it's harder for anything to counter shield tanked HAV's. 3: It's good that you have your own opinion. That means that you're an independent person at least on a concussions level. That doesn't mean that your opinion is a valid one. Say for example you think feminism is great. I would say that you're an idiot, and egalitarian is the correct way to go. 4: A rail with range on a blaster is only valid if that Rail can keep range on said blaster. As soon as it loses that advantage, game over, which is why it isn't "superior". It should never always falter, the skill of the pilot should determine that. 1. This isn't true. You can have all the cover in the world, but that also provides a benefit to those on the other end as well. I use cover myself as a railer to overcome blasters, missiles or rails. A blaster with cover doesn't mean an automatic win, far from it. That same cover you use to hide can be used by myself to hide as well. With the advantage of range, I have more options to hit you from, limiting your contribution to the battle. I don't need to outright kill you, but I assure you in time I will. And I'll do it from 300 meters out if I have to but it will be done. If anything though in that time I've kept you occupied and unable to make any meaning contribution to the field. 2. It's a game, it doesn't have to make sense from a reality point of view. (and shouldn't from a balancing perspective) 3. Cool man, can we have a level headed discussion or would you rather bash me because you find me an "idiot" from your perspective. 4. This is EXACTLY the point I illustrated with my ultra long reply. Though I still contend that it's far easier to keep a target at range then it is to get within range when your own is limited in comparison. I can pump the target full of rounds with a rail as it approaches me, where a blaster just has to take it to get in range. You say use cover to get in range of course, but I'm no newb to this tactic and openly expect it and counter for it when I come across a blaster. Moving back, locating its position and reacting accordingly. Ever using my greatest advantage over it. If I have to, I'll pull back into the redline to get it. As I know once I lose that advantage, I will be at a disadvantage or on even ground. To ensure the win, I will have the upper hand. And that's easier to get when I have the superior range. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16918	Posted - 2015.02.02 00:29:00 - [303] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: 2. It's a game, it doesn't have to make sense from a reality point of view. (and shouldn't from a balancing perspective) I'll take that one on and say I can and should. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 299	Posted - 2015.02.02 01:12:00 - [304] - Quote I wouldn't mind seeing the large rails have a penalty to the hulls movement speed when charging up, similar to breach forge but not as drastic, would be a huge buff to blasters and Missle at short range and cut back on rail melee tanks or the nitro back and forth back and forth garbage rail tanks. Depends on the ehp of the hulls though, I have a feeling there is going to be alot of armor repping in the tank update.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2763	Posted - 2015.02.02 01:36:00 - [305] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That is only valid on flat surfaces with no cover AT ALL. That simply doesn't exist. On top of that, Rail alpha will be high, but DPS low, so missing (which is a thing) will hurt it. It's not superior in every circumstance, which is what I've been asking for, including hulls and pretty much everything else in the game. 2: Seeing as it makes little to no ******* sense that a large turret be made to shoot at tiny targets, I reject that. I'm pretty sure many others does as well. Not only does it not make a lick of logical sense, it devalues Gallente's main weapon of choice for a AV platform, it devalues small turrets on said HAV's, and it makes it to where it's harder for anything to counter shield tanked HAV's. 3: It's good that you have your own opinion. That means that you're an independent person at least on a concussions level. That doesn't mean that your opinion is a valid one. Say for example you think feminism is great. I would say that you're an idiot, and egalitarian is the correct way to go. 4: A rail with range on a blaster is only valid if that Rail can keep range on said blaster. As soon as it loses that advantage, game over, which is why it isn't "superior". It should never always falter, the skill of the pilot should determine that. 1. This isn't true. You can have all the cover in the world, but that also provides a benefit to those on the other end as well. I use cover myself as a railer to overcome blasters, missiles or rails. A blaster with cover doesn't mean an automatic win, far from it. That same cover you use to hide can be used by myself to hide as well. With the advantage of range, I have more options to hit you from, limiting your contribution to the battle. I don't need to outright kill you, but I assure you in time I will. And I'll do it from 300 meters out if I have to but it will be done. If anything though in that time I've kept you occupied and unable to make any meaning contribution to the field. 2. It's a game, it doesn't have to make sense from a reality point of view. (and shouldn't from a balancing perspective) 3. Cool man, can we have a level headed discussion or would you rather bash me because you find me an "idiot" from your perspective. 4. This is EXACTLY the point I illustrated with my ultra long reply. Though I still contend that it's far easier to keep a target at range then it is to get within range when your own is limited in comparison. I can pump the target full of rounds with a rail as it approaches me, where a blaster just has to take it to get in range. You say use cover to get in range of course, but I'm no newb to this tactic and openly expect it and counter for it when I come across a blaster. Moving back, locating its position and reacting accordingly. Ever using my greatest advantage over it. If I have to, I'll pull back into the redline to get it. As I know once I lose that advantage, I will be at a disadvantage or on even ground. To ensure the win, I will have the upper hand. And that's easier to get when I have the superior range. 1: A Blaster can make use of cover much more vs. a rail can. cover won't save ou in a blaster's optimal the vast majority of the time. The opposite is not the case. So yes, it is in fact true. What are you getting at exactly? A rail with a flat surface to target the blaster from will have an advantage by design, and a rail that doesn't have a clear shot due to cover will give the advantage to blasters b design, giving the advantage to blasters. Balancing blasters to be better than rails in short ranges while the rail being better at long ranges in this case logically makes sense? Do you not like things to make sense? 2: Yup, confirmed that you don't like things to make sense. I'm done here then. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.02 01:45:00 - [306] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing the large rails have a penalty to the hulls movement speed when charging up, similar to breach forge but not as drastic, would be a huge buff to blasters and Missle at short range and cut back on rail melee tanks or the nitro back and forth back and forth garbage rail tanks. Depends on the ehp of the hulls though, I have a feeling there is going to be alot of armor repping in the tank update. Turret tracking is a good start as well. At max range it doesn't take much turret turning to keep a target in your sights yet up close it makes a very noticeable difference. Perhaps that might be a good alternative as well if you want to emphasize more that it's meant for range and not close range engagements. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1257	Posted - 2015.02.02 01:55:00 - [307] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: 1: That is only valid on flat surfaces with no cover AT ALL. That simply doesn't exist. On top of that, Rail alpha will be high, but DPS low, so missing (which is a thing) will hurt it. It's not superior in every circumstance, which is what I've been asking for, including hulls and pretty much everything else in the game. 2: Seeing as it makes little to no ******* sense that a large turret be made to shoot at tiny targets, I reject that. I'm pretty sure many others does as well. Not only does it not make a lick of logical sense, it devalues Gallente's main weapon of choice for a AV platform, it devalues small turrets on said HAV's, and it makes it to where it's harder for anything to counter shield tanked HAV's. 3: It's good that you have your own opinion. That means that you're an independent person at least on a concussions level. That doesn't mean that your opinion is a valid one. Say for example you think feminism is great. I would say that you're an idiot, and egalitarian is the correct way to go. 4: A rail with range on a blaster is only valid if that Rail can keep range on said blaster. As soon as it loses that advantage, game over, which is why it isn't "superior". It should never always falter, the skill of the pilot should determine that. 1. This isn't true. You can have all the cover in the world, but that also provides a benefit to those on the other end as well. I use cover myself as a railer to overcome blasters, missiles or rails. A blaster with cover doesn't mean an automatic win, far from it. That same cover you use to hide can be used by myself to hide as well. With the advantage of range, I have more options to hit you from, limiting your contribution to the battle. I don't need to outright kill you, but I assure you in time I will. And I'll do it from 300 meters out if I have to but it will be done. If anything though in that time I've kept you occupied and unable to make any meaning contribution to the field. 2. It's a game, it doesn't have to make sense from a reality point of view. (and shouldn't from a balancing perspective) 3. Cool man, can we have a level headed discussion or would you rather bash me because you find me an "idiot" from your perspective. 4. This is EXACTLY the point I illustrated with my ultra long reply. Though I still contend that it's far easier to keep a target at range then it is to get within range when your own is limited in comparison. I can pump the target full of rounds with a rail as it approaches me, where a blaster just has to take it to get in range. You say use cover to get in range of course, but I'm no newb to this tactic and openly expect it and counter for it when I come across a blaster. Moving back, locating its position and reacting accordingly. Ever using my greatest advantage over it. If I have to, I'll pull back into the redline to get it. As I know once I lose that advantage, I will be at a disadvantage or on even ground. To ensure the win, I will have the upper hand. And that's easier to get when I have the superior range. 1: A Blaster can make use of cover much more vs. a rail can. cover won't save ou in a blaster's optimal the vast majority of the time. The opposite is not the case. So yes, it is in fact true. What are you getting at exactly? A rail with a flat surface to target the blaster from will have an advantage by design, and a rail that doesn't have a clear shot due to cover will give the advantage to blasters b design, giving the advantage to blasters. Balancing blasters to be better than rails in short ranges while the rail being better at long ranges in this case logically makes sense? Do you not like things to make sense? 2: Yup, confirmed that you don't like things to make sense. I'm done here then. 1: I'm sorry, it DOES work to both sides advantage if one or the other can break LOS and allow for brief bursts of healing and cooldowns. I do it all the time, and in fact use that cover to gain more range and stay out of a blaster optimal. It does work both ways. And your statement that rails only work on flat ground with no cover is just a little bit unreal. In practice this is TOTALLY untrue. 2: Look, if you want to be "real" about this, it wouldn't take more than one well placed shot to drop a tank. Much like in the real world. If you want to be "real" about this, I should squish people just by moving over them. If you want to be "real" about this, a railgun should cause considerable splash damage. If you want to be "real" about this, missiles should cause huge explosions full of shrapnel that slaughters infantry. If you want to be "real" about this, a large blaster would not only kill infantry but penetrate buildings and walls and cover. Causing considerable damage not just to Vehicles but infantry as well. Harder to hit infantry (much like it is) but causing something like a one shot kill None of this is true. So apparently we sacrifice some aspects of realism for the sake of balance. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 180	Posted - 2015.02.02 02:26:00 - [308] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: 1: I'm sorry, it DOES work to both sides advantage if one or the other can break LOS and allow for brief bursts of healing and cooldowns. I do it all the time, and in fact use that cover to gain more range and stay out of a blaster optimal. It does work both ways. And your statement that rails only work on flat ground with no cover is just a little bit unreal. In practice this is TOTALLY untrue. 2: Look, if you want to be "real" about this, it wouldn't take more than one well placed shot to drop a tank. Much like in the real world. If you want to be "real" about this, I should squish people just by moving over them. If you want to be "real" about this, a railgun should cause considerable splash damage. If you want to be "real" about this, missiles should cause huge explosions full of shrapnel that slaughters infantry. If you want to be "real" about this, a large blaster would not only kill infantry but penetrate buildings and walls and cover. Causing considerable damage not just to Vehicles but infantry as well. Harder to hit infantry (much like it is) but causing something like a one shot kill None of this is true. So apparently we sacrifice some aspects of realism for the sake of balance. Well...bear in mind we are in a Sci-Fi game, where technology is going to be more advanced than modern day, and different combat doctrines and philosophies would have been adopted, and technologies adapted to fit those Well in response to #2: 1. Space "Tanks" (In this case Heavy Attack Vehicles) could be built with redundant systems, and their shields and armor are built to be highly resilient to the damage (Most likely, spreading the impact out over a larger area with nano-coatings and the like). It could be that HAV (and dropsuit) armor is based on a morphite alloy, or possibly sleeper tech (Metallofullerenes and the like) , given the origins of the implants used to give the mercs immortality. If we assume a similar design to the starship hulls, the resilience can be quite astounding of even more commonplace Tritanium based alloys (able to survive repeated bombardment from Tachyon Beam Lasers, High Caliber Railguns...anti-matter rounds fired from both rails and blasters...not to mention thermo-nuclear equipped auto-cannon rounds and rockets (to say nothing of the artillery cannons and regular missiles)). 2. Should you Squish People: Maybe if they where completely unprotected, but dropsuits and their in-built inertial dampeners could be used to explain this....the inertial dampener subsystem could interface with the shield system to alleviate damage from spread out sources (Such as tank treads...the ground...bumpers...etc) 3-4. Well...in addition to splash damage, if we assume 80GJ is an accurate measure of weapon output...it should be obliterating just about anything in front of it...so a given there, but let's assume that the railgun is just a terrible energy converter (or 80GJ is just a marketing scheme), then the same techno-babble from above could be used to explain why they ignore the pressure/thermal wave(s) from the splash damage, as for shrapnel...maybe the shields and armor are just that good, that they don't even register on the damage scale 5. To borrow what the devs stated in the past: Space Concrete is really really strong...and maybe the suits are really, really good, given how easily the series one templars took the minmatar emplacements (as are the infantry weapons). Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16321	Posted - 2015.02.02 02:37:00 - [309] - Quote Yet again, this thread is derailing. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 180	Posted - 2015.02.02 02:40:00 - [310] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. Sorry...I can't resist a chance to make techno-babble myself I think 2k Blaster DPS is too high myself on the Blaster BTW...should sit somewhere around 860-1000 DPS (and adjust other weapons from there)... But I do firmly believe that all Large Turrets should be designed to be Primarily Anti-Material Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16918	Posted - 2015.02.02 02:44:00 - [311] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. Sorry...I can't resist a chance to make techno-babble myself I think 2k Blaster DPS is too high myself on the Blaster BTW...should sit somewhere around 860-1000 DPS... But I do firmly believe that all Large Turrets should be designed to be Primarily Anti-Material However everything you suggested is essentially correct...... barring of course I would think the shrapnel/AOE. The techno babble is wondrous. But again that's to de-rail from the intended topic since we know turrets aren't changing. "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 4696	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:32:00 - [312] - Quote Honestly talking about absolute DPS is pointless if we don't know what the final eHP of vehicles is going to be. What's important is the relative differences between the DPS and function of each turret. They can all be raised or lowered later (once we have more information on vehicle eHP) if they are balanced between one another. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6925	Posted - 2015.02.02 05:01:00 - [313] - Quote The stated objective of the turret rebalance is to make all turrets viable for AV equally within their own bailiwick. What I'm doing is trying to make them viable as AV without making them so destructive that we need to be gun shy about letting them target infantry. by the way Rattati did you get my turret link? AV
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2515	Posted - 2015.02.02 12:20:00 - [314] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. Honestly, it will continue to be derailed, because more than anything else, AV/V is the most hotly debated topic in Dust. Having played both sides, I know how irritating it is when a tank rolls up and there's nothing I can do to stop it, and I know how frustrating it is when 1 player can destroy my proto tank with all the support skills to 5. Both sides feel like they are the underdog, and even you yourself get emotional on the subject. Plus we have people that just try and start fights (not gonna name names, but Spkr) and that gets everyone all riled up until we are trying to win the argument, not to find balance. I feel like some people have forgotten your intent as far as vehicles go, so perhaps re-outlining your vision could help get things back on track. Do you want a large turret(s) to be able to effectively and consistently engage and kill infantry? Do you want there to be a vehicle or variant dedicated to the anti-infantry role? How do you see infantry/vehicle interaction going? How do you see vehicle/vehicle interaction going? Re-establishing these guidelines will surely make one side or the other upset, but it would make it easier for the people who generate good ideas to structure their ideas into how you envision the game to be, meaning we get more ideas you would be willing to take action on. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Mountain Doody F0RSAKEN EMPIRE. Smart Deploy 44	Posted - 2015.02.02 15:19:00 - [315] - Quote Hi, militia large missile turrets please
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.02 18:40:00 - [316] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Yet again, this thread is derailing. True, let's take a look back to your original OP. CCP Rattati wrote: Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close Railgun, too good at everything What I assume you mean by this is that it's too good up close and at range. Making it the turret people gravitate to for making vehicle kills. It also has some limited AI functionality, able to make kills on infantry with careful tracking, or if they stand still long enough to get that red dot to light up. In an average game, I might make 10 rail kills on infantry. Is this acceptable? In any case let's focus on AV functionality. First we must identify what we want. I think the most obvious aspect we want to eliminate is how effective it is in close quarters combat against another tank. Addressing this, the statement that a blaster is not good enough at close ranges becomes less true against a rail. I really don't like the idea of further lowing DPS potential as I feel rails are in a decent spot damage wise. Lowering DPS potential further though heat cost specifically. This would not only eliminate CQC abilities, but also severely limit ranged abilities. What I'm saying here that type of nerf would hurt the turret all around, moving it out of the spotlight completely. What I feel will have a lesser effect at range but a far greater effect in CQC is lowering the turning speed of the turret, IE turret tracking. Let's get out of the box and start identifying other potential aspects of turrets aside from the most obvious, DPS, that can have considerable impacts on their abilities in certain situations. Also note that making turrets turn independently of the hull itself can have a huge impact on the disparity between a maddie with a rail and a gunnlogi with a rail. The turning ability of a gunnlogi benefits turning of their turrets to a very large degree over the madrudger. Blaster is not good enough at close Again, let's identify what we want. We want blasters to shine in a CQC environment. A rail should be at a disadvantage within a blasters optimal. Again though I don't see straight DPS as the best way to do this. If any changes to DPS are to be made, they should be small, as blasters are not that underpowered as many would make them out to be. Again I will say though that the range is the most inhibiting aspect of the turret. No matter what you do, it will always falter to any long range counterpart, if the range disadvantage is used to the others advantage. A couple of things to note here. Limited range forces them into unfavorable positions, not only with another rail, but with AV on the field that trumps it's own range. Where a rail can maintain distance from the tank AND AV on the field. It will always have better AI support abilities over other types, and this should be seriously considered for why it's lesser against other AV turrets. What I mean is it should be kept this way, as moving it more to AV will still result in it underperforming against another rail. As I mentioned at the beginning, one change to turret tracking could nip this in the butt. But it still won't be the top dawg people want it to be or expect it to be, regardless of what you do because of the way range affects tank dynamics. Even when blasters were king, before 1.6 that is, the best way to deal with one was with a rail, if you intended not to risk your tank. So unless you move the rail to a "support role" a blaster will ever falter to it. Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Let's identify what we want, yet again. Burst DPS is far too high and needs to be lowered in some way. Missiles can unload their entire salvo in just a few seconds. By doing so, they can easily apply a large amount of DPS in a very short time compared to other turrets. To the point that they can destroy any tank not stacked with defense in just a few seconds. Agreed that by removing the "auto fire" function is a good start. Give missiles the ability to only fire so many rockets at a time, thereby decreasing the DPS potential to fall more in line with other turrets. I would prefer see this done with something like 3 round bursts, a slight decrease to overall damage, and an increase to clip size to compensate. That or reduce reload speed, over clip size. One thing to note though when you go about saying missile DPS is too high. This is only true against armor. My shield stacked gunnlogi laughs off missile salvos. By decreasing DPS potential, you also make it impossible for missiles to affect shields in any reasonable way. This would need to be addressed, otherwise missiles will remain as they do now, novelties at best. TL;DR Decreasing turret tracking for rails will help address the main disparity between blasters and rails. That rails can outperform or are on even ground with a blaster in CQC. This will have limited impact at range but very noticeable impacts when trying to use them in a close quarter environment. RoF change to missiles is a good start, but addressing the damage differences between armor and shields must be done. Maybe change the damage profile to do more damage against shields then current. 85/105 or something like that maybe. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
The-Errorist 992	Posted - 2015.02.02 19:32:00 - [317] - Quote For those of you who forgot/don't know, this is the point of the thread. If you can't follow it, don't post here, post in some other thread. CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. Also from the spreadsheet, he wants Quote: Blaster dps is only constrained by heat Missile dps is only constrained by time between alpha strikes - so reload time and ammo in clip Railgun dps is constrained by charge up and heat And damage profiles are probably not up for debate and would stay the same against shields/armor: Hybrid plasma: +10/-10 % Hybrid rail: -10/+10 % Explosive: -20/+20 % Messing with these will also mess with infantry weapons. A bit like how rifles where balanced for infantry, a large blaster in it's optimal range should be superior to large missiles and railguns; a large missile in it's optimal range should be superior to large blasters and railguns; a large railgun in it's optimal range should be superior to large blasters and missiles. Pokey Dravon wrote: Honestly talking about absolute DPS is pointless if we don't know what the final eHP of vehicles is going to be. What's important is the relative differences between the DPS and function of each turret. They can all be raised or lowered later (once we have more information on vehicle eHP) if they are balanced between one another. Tebu Gan wrote: ... You are right, Tanks have no goal. But how is making the strictly AV to give them roles? If all they do is kill other tanks, why is there need for them on the field? Might as well have your own tank game mode, as infantry will have no use for you as you aren't adding anything to the battle. You are forgetting that they can also fit AI small turrets and with the DHAVs and UHAVs there will be clearer roles: regular basic tanks will be generalist, DHAVs will be better at AV, and UHAVs will be better at AI. MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
The-Errorist 993	Posted - 2015.02.02 19:42:00 - [318] - Quote Currently DMG to overheat for large blasters and rails are basically the same and large blaster's should be higher Railguns should have higher alpha dps than blasters, but overheat before doing more damage than a blaster can before it overheats. Blaster's reload speed should be faster instead of the same as a large railgun's. Sustained DPS(considering reload speed and overheat) of large blaster should be higher, not smaller compared to a large missile. MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2767	Posted - 2015.02.02 21:45:00 - [319] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Honestly talking about absolute DPS is pointless if we don't know what the final eHP of vehicles is going to be. What's important is the relative differences between the DPS and function of each turret. They can all be raised or lowered later (once we have more information on vehicle eHP) if they are balanced between one another. I'm sure we can expect them to be at around 6-10k eHP for a T I HAV, and therefore the turrets shouldn't do more than a thousand DPS per second, otherwise we would have the sort battles that we have now. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4701	Posted - 2015.02.02 21:56:00 - [320] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Honestly talking about absolute DPS is pointless if we don't know what the final eHP of vehicles is going to be. What's important is the relative differences between the DPS and function of each turret. They can all be raised or lowered later (once we have more information on vehicle eHP) if they are balanced between one another. I'm sure we can expect them to be at around 6-10k eHP for a T I HAV, and therefore the turrets shouldn't do more than a thousand DPS per second, otherwise we would have the sort battles that we have now. Thats a pretty fair estimate to use as a benchmark for preliminary design. I guess my point is that we shouldn't waste time discussing exactly how much the DPS should be, as the eHP of the vehicles may be higher or lower than ~10k "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6938	Posted - 2015.02.02 23:05:00 - [321] - Quote So long as HAVs float between 8,000-11,000 HP balancing turrets and infantry AV should require very little in the way of ass-pulls. It's fairly straightforward. I just can't finalize my recommendations until rattati finishes his hull stuff. AV
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 199	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:32:00 - [322] - Quote I've stayed quiet for too long. Here's the deal folks. I have full V everything blaster, and can watch a SICA go hardened, and watch the damage stop. I got the pure cold drop on a gunni only to have it harden, start regen, and turbo off into the redline sunset. Yes. I have killed fledgling tankers in their badly fit MLT tanks with ease. ... With ions and a blaster dmg mod. Our range sucks. Our dispersion sucks. Our DPS is a joke. And that's versus VEHICLES. First I must say, Ratti-man, I love you. Idk how one dude can make the difference you have, but keep it up. Now the taboo. A solo-fit rail is 90% of the time far far away from viable AV threats. A solo -fit missile can suppress AV. A solo-fit blaster is, well, yeah Tommy. The AV players know, that on foot, versus blaster, they have a 7-9% chance of dying. They just run straight at you dripping saliva and disgorging all manner of AV. (I do it... can confirm) Of course the AV players will bellow "oh GG man, you just can't aim" cough When blasters worked, if you rushed me in an AV suit, I would pop your grape. ( I still hear that loverly sound with my ARR so it's all good) The Rattati-man himself has spoken and declared blasters AV, and I respect that. But they are now in a place that even with skill, it can make you respec. The blaster was the tank that kept foot AV off the rangers, and turned the tide in a blitz with multiple tanks. Simple as that. My feels was to drive through the smoldering hull of my enemy after I ran him through. Now I feel like this: http://youtu.be/Zy7OdvPvFyU The hare, obviously. Maybe a 7-10m radius that has very low dispersion? Maybe raise large turret a tiny hair and give us lower aim? Reduce dispersion, but give an AI dmg penalty? Idk if that would be a coding nightmare or not. If "be suppressed" is always the only option, I will just stop tanking for good. TL;DR - Blasters have been nerfed to a state where foot AV can just have their way with you. Nolo contendere. We have to be close to fight. Can we fix this without breaking balance? p.s. I pulse my blasters in 3-5 round braps to avoid dispersion and heat and can still barely get shots on a tank rusher. Try hitting a scout that's sprinting, jumping, tossing grenades, and remotes, and plasma, with a gun that does shoot where you aim it... lol oh wait "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16931	Posted - 2015.02.03 00:44:00 - [323] - Quote Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2526	Posted - 2015.02.03 02:08:00 - [324] - Quote A point of contention on all blaster discussion; they MUST MUSTVMUST do enough damage to stop shield regen AT THE MLT/STD LEVEL. There can be no arguments made here. If it cannot do that on its own unassisted, then it cannot do AV. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6939	Posted - 2015.02.03 06:04:00 - [325] - Quote Devadander wrote: I've stayed quiet for too long. Here's the deal folks. I have full V everything blaster, and can watch a SICA go hardened, and watch the damage stop. I got the pure cold drop on a gunni only to have it harden, start regen, and turbo off into the redline sunset. Edit: Forgot to mention, I don't even go after armor tanks because if they have a rep and a hardener, see youtube link. Yes. I have killed fledgling tankers in their badly fit MLT tanks with ease. ... With ions and a blaster dmg mod. Our range sucks. Our dispersion sucks. Our DPS is a joke. And that's versus VEHICLES. First I must say, Ratti-man, I love you. Idk how one dude can make the difference you have, but keep it up. Now the taboo. A solo-fit rail is 90% of the time far far away from viable AV threats. A solo -fit missile can suppress AV. A solo-fit blaster is, well, yeah Tommy. The AV players know, that on foot, versus blaster, they have a 7-9% chance of dying. They just run straight at you dripping saliva and disgorging all manner of AV. (I do it... can confirm) Of course the AV players will bellow "oh GG man, you just can't aim" cough When blasters worked, if you rushed me in an AV suit, I would pop your grape. ( I still hear that loverly sound with my ARR so it's all good) The Rattati-man himself has spoken and declared blasters AV, and I respect that. But they are now in a place that even with skill, it can make you respec. The blaster was the tank that kept foot AV off the rangers, and turned the tide in a blitz with multiple tanks. Simple as that. My feels was to drive through the smoldering hull of my enemy after I ran him through. Now I feel like this: http://youtu.be/Zy7OdvPvFyU The hare, obviously. Maybe a 7-10m radius that has very low dispersion? Maybe raise large turret a tiny hair and give us lower aim? Reduce dispersion, but give an AI dmg penalty? Idk if that would be a coding nightmare or not. If "be suppressed" is always the only option, I will just stop tanking for good. TL;DR - Blasters have been nerfed to a state where foot AV can just have their way with you. Nolo contendere. We have to be close to fight. Can we fix this without breaking balance? p.s. I pulse my blasters in 3-5 round braps to avoid dispersion and heat and can still barely get shots on a tank rusher. Try hitting a scout that's sprinting, jumping, tossing grenades, and remotes, and plasma, with a gun that does shoot where you aim it... lol oh wait This. This right here is very much why I refer to attacking vehicles as akin to a mugging. This is why I wanted to be involved in the process. Because knowing I'm not likely to die unless the stars align is not fun for me. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1388	Posted - 2015.02.03 06:51:00 - [326] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: This. This right here is very much why I refer to attacking vehicles as akin to a mugging. This is why I wanted to be involved in the process. Because knowing I'm not likely to die unless the stars align is not fun for me. I honestly miss the days when I felt like killing a vehicle was an accomplishment. I was actually proud of myself, even when tanks were in a "bad" place. I'm the Rayman of uplinks. 21 day EVE trial.
The-Errorist 994	Posted - 2015.02.03 19:24:00 - [327] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets. MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2530	Posted - 2015.02.03 19:33:00 - [328] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: True Adamance wrote: Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets. He means like in an Abrams main turret kind if way. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16944	Posted - 2015.02.03 22:03:00 - [329] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The-Errorist wrote: True Adamance wrote: Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets. He means like in an Abrams main turret kind if way. Yeah I don't like the idea for firing more than 1-2 shells in rapid succession....and by rapid I do mean within the space of 3 seconds. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Petrified Ancient Tree Expert Intervention Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.04 05:35:00 - [330] - Quote Biggest issue with turrets are their placement on maps. More often than not I find the turret locations in very illogical locations: Blaster turrets in open areas, not controlling a bottleneck or tight location Railturrets behind clusters of buildings and terrain where their main feature - taking a target at range, is useless. They need wider, clearer lines of sight... then you can nerf them. Missile turrets also end up with the same issue as Rail Turrets. Also, while we are talking about turrets: rail guns for HAVs - can you add a zoom function like the stationary turrets have? Makes no sense to have a long range weapon without it.

Alena Ventrallis Intara Direct Action Caldari State 2539	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:06:00 - [331] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: The-Errorist wrote: True Adamance wrote: Also wondering of High Alpha AoE turrets are on the "To Do List " for vehicles....... still sorely needed. I'm guessing it's the fragmented missile turrets. He means like in an Abrams main turret kind if way. Yeah I don't like the idea for firing more than 1-2 shells in rapid succession....and by rapid I do mean within the space of 3 seconds. Suppose a shell like you describe with an entire railgun reload time between shots? Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 305	Posted - 2015.02.04 09:58:00 - [332] - Quote The new proposed damage of the proto turret ( no damage buff ) is disappointing, but if the new heat build up numbers do let you get off 4 shots without over heating I can see it not being much of an issue. The DHAV damage bonus to blasters and missiles is going to make every rail shot count as that dps is going to be quite high.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6947	Posted - 2015.02.04 12:26:00 - [333] - Quote Hey Rattati, if I may offer some critique on your latest? One of the reasons I was keeping distance between the turret types and keeping them below a baseline 1000 DPS was to leave room for growth via skills and damage mods. Unless you intend to leave most of the skills blank (which I do not recommend) it'll have a sharp effect on DPS that may or may not be intended. I can't read your mind. But part of the problem is that there's very little difference between a new player and a veteran player running the same fit. If there's no variance that's discernable then we'll retain speedball TTK at the lowest levels and for AV infantry Prototype weapons will default to weapons of first resort rather than an escalation. I would personally like to see more escalation and less "Oh look a vehicle. Get the Wiyrkomis and IAFGs." If you were to use my numbers or scale them up it leaves room for things like shifting the turret rotation bonuses to the heavy turret operation skills while allowing for things such as a +3%-4% to applicable tank damage per level, rather akin to infantry weapons which can stack with damage mods as we have them now without dropping TTK too sharply while still noticably lowering TTK. It would also give DHAVs with a solid DPS bonus a chance to kill a target before getting blapped. This is just my thought, based on my desire to see the depth and breadth of the vehicle skill tree having space to open and improve rather than merely being a pattern of unlocks. The more we make skills matter, the less vehicles will feel like an SP paywall, and the more variation we will see. I hesitate to bring up cookie cutter fits and beat this dead horse more, but the more skills matter, the more modules are affected, and the more skill matters to turret DPS the less the term "cookie cutter" can be applied to the HAV pilots and their vehicles. Hope the input helps. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2865	Posted - 2015.02.04 16:53:00 - [334] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, We want to reach a 100% equilibrium between the AV capabilities of Large Turrets, their primary purpose. The AI of Large Turrets should be thought in terms of an Active module, reducing Dispersion. All other factors should be towards making it the Close range brawler weapon of choice. There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. Guidance Principles Missile Launcher Alpha is too extreme Railgun is too good at everything Blaster is not good enough at close There are a few "Best to Worst" guidance examples in my spreadsheet, found here under "Large Turrets" HAV Large Turrets Please discuss. Do you have my turret spreadsheet? As far as the large missile, lower the damage, give the Falchion a damage bonus to the missile turret to fulfill its intended role. As far as the rail, I feel it's in a good place. It doesn't need a damage nerf, as it won't get a damage bonus for any role or hull. The blaster does need less dispersion, the large one. It'll help as a tank closes in on a target. The small should have less dispersion as its meant for anti infantry. What are your ideas for the fragmented? Obviously less damage, preferably faster fire rate. I'm not hot on the idea of an active module for anti infantry purposes. Will it work for just the blaster, or the large missile too? How about the railgun? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2866	Posted - 2015.02.04 18:03:00 - [335] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo The railgun already generates more than enough heat per round. If the trigger is held down, how many rounds can be fired? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1258	Posted - 2015.02.04 18:46:00 - [336] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo The railgun already generates more than enough heat per round. If the trigger is held down, how many rounds can be fired? That's what I thought. Why I suggest addressing turret rotation speed to reduce CQC effectiveness as I think that's the over goal of increasing heat. Maybe even reduce clip size to 7. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
The-Errorist 999	Posted - 2015.02.05 02:17:00 - [337] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo The railgun already generates more than enough heat per round. If the trigger is held down, how many rounds can be fired? That's what I thought. Why I suggest addressing turret rotation speed to reduce CQC effectiveness as I think that's the over goal of increasing heat. Maybe even reduce clip size to 7. Turret rotation is fine, just clip size need to be cut and reload time needs to be increased. MAG & cb Dust vet. Forum alt of Velvet Overkill Glorious racial tank hull spreadsheet
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6954	Posted - 2015.02.05 08:39:00 - [338] - Quote Cutting the mag on rails will mean no margin for error. 9 round mags are a bit tight for ammo. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:06:00 - [339] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: (not gonna name names, but Spkr) and that gets everyone all riled up until we are trying to win the argument, not to find balance. I don't post to "start fights." I post to indicate errors, things that people would know from experience if they were to ever pilot a tank. I decided to check the status of two of the forum's loudest voices when it comes to this vehicle rebalance stuff, and you know what I saw? Neither of them have played in over a month. Could be far longer than that. They're the voice of reason, yet haven't played in a long time, and I'm the extremist, calling a lot of ideas bad, because they're proposed by people that don't use vehicles, and I play basically every day. So, you go figure that one out. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:09:00 - [340] - Quote Skybladev2 wrote: You should also check collision detection in general and for missiles particularly. One time I got shot with my own missile in a still dropship (gunner seat). That's been in the game for over a year, and unless it's posted on here with video evidence, it most likely will never get looked at because there's other stuff to do. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:11:00 - [341] - Quote D3LTA Blitzkrieg II wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: First Turret Proposal is up in the spreadsheet, just to have a foundation to discuss. Blaster DPS Missiles in Clip down Heat on Rails up Check out the ratios calculated for comparison. Attempting to equalize damage per clip/ammo I would not increase the rail heat buildup unless you plan on bringing back a active module to really help out with that. Blaster sucks vs tank and past 30 meters worthless vs. intelligent infantry. It takes too long to kill an anti-armor starter suit at 15m away with a blaster. Have great aim, get nerfed because of it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2869	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:14:00 - [342] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: My experience in current tank vs tank is that rail tanks frequently have enough EHP that they can survive blaster or missile fire long enough even with their slow RoF that they can easily win vs other tanks. You probably don't see any armor tanks. Especially when you factor in things like damage mods. Even harder to fit on an armor tank. Fitting cost increases to rail might be appropriate, but I still forsee a lot S.H.A.V's with a large rail making other vehicles lives miserable. What are they supposed to use? Peakaboo gameplay is something I witness frequently with current particle cannon tanks. You must be watching some bad tankers, and I don't mean very many people with 5mil SP into any vehicle skills. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16587	Posted - 2015.02.05 13:58:00 - [343] - Quote what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2459	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:16:00 - [344] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ^^My vote FWIW We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 8436	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:31:00 - [345] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now APC Turret, yo. Just -FEELS- powerful. Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department? *Founder of AIV*
SponkSponkSponk WarRavens Capital Punishment. 1132	Posted - 2015.02.05 14:31:00 - [346] - Quote Lower, but not ridiculously low. About 120RPM (roughly equivalent to a Vickers S auto cannon), but I can sort of see how the existing blaster is modelled more like a QF 1-pounder pom-pom. Dust/Eve transfers
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 928	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:00:00 - [347] - Quote Like an APC definitely or just lower in general.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 966	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:07:00 - [348] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss If anti infantry: ROF as implemented currently. If anti vehicle: APC style.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 854	Posted - 2015.02.05 15:16:00 - [349] - Quote apc style unless... medium turrets. then tank style
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6955	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:06:00 - [350] - Quote Slower RoF. .25 -.5 seconds between shots range would be my preference. AV

Alaika Arbosa Minmatar Republic 2460	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:13:00 - [351] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: apc style unless... medium turrets. then tank style Looking forward to medium turrets is exactly why I voted tank style. Better to lay framework now rather than need to rebalance everything later. We the pc players make up a huge majority of active players. --Roman837 ^^ROFLMAO OMG I need to catch my breath now..
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2079	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:42:00 - [352] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I want a shotgun blaster turret. 8 pellets at 150dmg/pellet and .6s refire (2000dps) or 10pellets at 120dmg/pellet and .6s refire (2000dps). Much less murder vs infantry (though still threatening because of incidental damage). I'll agree that missile RoF is too high right now - you can fire so fast that kick/dispersion throws your missiles off target, I almost want to go back to the old style large missile turrets that fired in bursts (just with appropriately upscaled missile damage). I do not like extremely short TTK on vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 810	Posted - 2015.02.05 16:51:00 - [353] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now Blaster ROF is fine the way it is. Most other tanks in FPS are trying to imitate life, and even then get it mixed up. Dust has its own style, that players already like. Missile ROF is also fine as is. Straight talk: These are two issues that I haven't seen brought up before from either tankers or infantry, so if your going to go with your feelings be prepared for a huge backlash if it doesn't quite work out. My advice: If it aint broke dont fix it. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2870	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:00:00 - [354] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now You know what, practically everybody used the scattered blaster when we had it. If you want a module to help against infantry, then we use that to reduce the dispersion while slightly decreasing damage. I say slightly because it's not easy to kill infantry now. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2870	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:01:00 - [355] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now Blaster ROF is fine the way it is. Most other tanks in FPS are trying to imitate life, and even then get it mixed up. Dust has its own style, that players already like. Missile ROF is also fine as is. Straight talk: These are two issues that I haven't seen brought up before from either tankers or infantry, so if your going to go with your feelings be prepared for a huge backlash if it doesn't quite work out. My advice: If it aint broke dont fix it. Missile is too fast. Destroyer should get a rate of fire bonus, and a damage bonus. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2079	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:09:00 - [356] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2871	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:25:00 - [357] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. If you don't like what I have to say, then just block me on here, problem solved. You're essentially covering your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you." Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
The-Errorist 1000	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:30:00 - [358] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss Would make them have higher damage per shot and lower RoF which is what AV turrets should be like which would also help with stopping shield regen and be generally easier to balance as AV. My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos Racial tanks
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2306	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:48:00 - [359] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now My honest opinion on the large blaster: just make it more geared towards fighting infantry compared to the other large turrets. You might think that lowering its ROF will make it weaker against infantry, but I feel that that won't give you the desired effect. Lowering its ROF means increasing its damage. Now you get a large blaster that can one-shot most infantry while still maintaining a decent ROF (actually, the perfect balance between ROF and direct damage: not too much direct damage like the large railgun where you're dealing too much damage and are losing ROF, but just enough direct damage to one-shot most infantry and boasting a higher ROF). You will forever see balance issues with the current design of the large blaster. Instead, just give it slightly lower DPS than the rest of the large turrets and remove its dispersion. Now it's a precision weapon which infantry should fear in the hands of a skilled pilot, but its lower DPS will put it at a natural disadvantage against other HAVs with a large missile or railgun. If you really want a Gallente AV large turret, then all I can say is, you'll have to come up with a new design. Others have already talked about this and have been giving good feedback on. Probably the best one I like is a plasma cannon-like large turret. Low ROF like a railgun, but higher direct damage due to it having a limited effective range and a slower projectile travel time. There's your Gallente AV large turret. Keep the current large blaster as geared more towards anti-infantry. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 812	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:09:00 - [360] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Slower RoF. .25 -.5 seconds between shots range would be my preference. With ratattis sheet thats between 2.5 to 5 seconds to fire a full clip, then another 12 seconds to reload. Kiss that missile tank good bye. Thats at 30 to 40 seconds to get off the 24 shots we have now in 12.8 seconds. Besides this , I had another look at the spread sheet. If these were the numbers finalized for today: Rails will be able to do 8,480 damage (+1,696) before overheat, 12 round clips (+3), and 108 (+45) ammo total. Missiles wil be reduced to 5,400 (- 1074) damage before emptying the clip 10 (-2) round clips, 90 (-54) ammo total. Blasters will 5760 damage, 5,700 (- 792) damage before overheat, 75 (-130) round clips, 675 (-145)ammo total. I don't know how the future hull bonuses / SP sinks will affect the future meta. It looks like 10 skill books minimum are being b planned just for hulls( MBT, SHAV, 2 Faction SHAV, UHAV, DHAV, 2 Faction UHAV, 2 Faction DHAV). Everything may pan out, but i don't know all the details. That being said Current meta: This would certainly be the end of any tank that wasn't a rail. 20,352 damage per clip planned for rail tanks, massive ammo capacity mean the redline rails dont have to budge from their sniper nest the entire match. I can destroy installations without having to reload and still have enough ammo in the single clip to kill a tank. Blaster are a good second place choice. Nerfed pretty hard as well, but heat managment is the easiest on a blaster tank, so dumping a lot of damage is still possible. Considering every massive advantage the rail would have, up close you might have a shot. One vs one i certainly would pick it over the missiles. More damage, short cool down (you'll over heat cool down and start firing before a missile tank reloads) a shield blaster would tear a missile tank to shreds. Missile tanks, it was sweet knowing you but this is a nerf straight into the ground. Future meta or no, a proto missile tank simply wont do enough damage before either the rail or a blaster finishes it off. Its outclassed as AV rails and infantry AV by miles. Since its no good at being in the redline, mid range + long reloads + low damage, and soon to be low ROF there is very little incentive to use it at all anymore. Outclassed at every level. Its useless to play the tanker card. From my experience however, rails are being buffed far too much, missiles being nerfed far too much, and blasters look to be nerfed to shreds vs rails but should slaughter missiles tanks with ease. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2086	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:20:00 - [361] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. If you don't like what I have to say, then just block me on here, problem solved. You're essentially covering your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you." You are nitpicking at posts from page two while the discussion has moved to page eighteen. This is no longer relevant or meaningful discussion, I will not engage in non-discussions with you thus all I have to say is go away. I have provided adequate support for my position, I see tanks play peekaboo from the redline with proto rail turrets on a daily basis as does practically everyone else who actually plays this game, stomping your feet and denying a fact doesn't make it not a fact. Let me repeat: I will not engage in non-discussion with you, I do not engage with people who deny things that are facts, I will not speak with you as long as you continue to be immature and non-constructive. Here's a handy guide for you Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 186	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:42:00 - [362] - Quote As you know Rattati, I'm in favor of a more Shotgun-Style turret for the Blaster...just getting that out of the way, but if we assume that, for now at least, the blaster turret retains current functionality...it needs to engage more like an IFV turret...the Dum...Dum...Dum one than the Current One...or possibly a burst fire mechanic with a Dum Dum Dum......Dum Dum Dum... Might fit the flavor of the weapon system we see on the star-ships a bit closer Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1260	Posted - 2015.02.05 18:42:00 - [363] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: words Go away. If you don't like what I have to say, then just block me on here, problem solved. You're essentially covering your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you." You are nitpicking at posts from page two while the discussion has moved to page eighteen. This is no longer relevant or meaningful discussion, I will not engage in non-discussions with you thus all I have to say is go away. I have provided adequate support for my position, I see tanks play peekaboo from the redline with proto rail turrets on a daily basis as does practically everyone else who actually plays this game, stomping your feet and denying a fact doesn't make it not a fact. Let me repeat: I will not engage in non-discussion with you, I do not engage with people who deny things that are facts, I will not speak with you as long as you continue to be immature and non-constructive. Here's a handy guide for you Not to agree with one or the other, peekabo is more or less a thing of the past. Sure you have some tanks hiding in the redline, but it's very map dependent whether this will work or not. I honestly do see this as much of a problem as you yourself do as I don't see it often myself. Most tanks come out or just sit there the whole match not bothering anyone. I mean if you really have a hard on for a tank hiding in the redline afraid to come out, go in there and take it out. Or lure it out. Otherwise, accept you have already beat it and move on. At 300M range, it isn't hurting you or anything else for that matter. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 604	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:04:00 - [364] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now Current one, definitely. Fast one should be for the small turret. Similar to how the Breach AR has a lower RoF but higher damage per shot. And I love how satisfying the Breach feels. It just feels stylistically sound that more power would have slower shots, without losing the characteristic property of high rate of fire.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 2088	Posted - 2015.02.05 19:23:00 - [365] - Quote Harpyja wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now My honest opinion on the large blaster: just make it more geared towards fighting infantry compared to the other large turrets. You might think that lowering its ROF will make it weaker against infantry, but I feel that that won't give you the desired effect. Lowering its ROF means increasing its damage. Now you get a large blaster that can one-shot most infantry while still maintaining a decent ROF (actually, the perfect balance between ROF and direct damage: not too much direct damage like the large railgun where you're dealing too much damage and are losing ROF, but just enough direct damage to one-shot most infantry and boasting a higher ROF). You will forever see balance issues with the current design of the large blaster. Instead, just give it slightly lower DPS than the rest of the large turrets and remove its dispersion. Now it's a precision weapon which infantry should fear in the hands of a skilled pilot, but its lower DPS will put it at a natural disadvantage against other HAVs with a large missile or railgun. If you really want a Gallente AV large turret, then all I can say is, you'll have to come up with a new design. Others have already talked about this and have been giving good feedback on. Probably the best one I like is a plasma cannon-like large turret. Low ROF like a railgun, but higher direct damage due to it having a limited effective range and a slower projectile travel time. There's your Gallente AV large turret. Keep the current large blaster as geared more towards anti-infantry. Seconding. Rail turret is bad vs infantry because it overkills things in a single shot yet doesn't have a good RoF to shoot at infantry with. A slower but higher damage blaster will not suffer from overkilling it will instead to just the right amount of damage to kill in 2 or 3 rounds which will arguably make it EVEN BETTER vs infantry. The blaster turret needs a redesign. I would also suggest doubling the large rail RoF & magazine size but halving the damage per shot, so it's less of an "OH ** I'M ABOUT TO DIE" on the first shot and "OH IM DEAD" on the second shot, it will do the same damage over time, but less instant murdergank fuckyou damage upfront. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian.** I have a few alts.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:33:00 - [366] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now APC Turret, yo. Just -FEELS- powerful. It would have to be slightly faster than that...maybe, Choo Choo
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 191	Posted - 2015.02.05 20:36:00 - [367] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss Would make them have higher damage per shot and lower RoF which is what AV turrets should be like which would also help with stopping shield regen and be generally easier to balance as AV. If shields can't regen witha hardener vs a blaster then armor will always win... Choo Choo
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 858	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:28:00 - [368] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Slower RoF. .25 -.5 seconds between shots range would be my preference. With ratattis sheet thats between 2.5 to 5 seconds to fire a full clip, then another 12 seconds to reload. Kiss that missile tank good bye. Thats at 30 to 40 seconds to get off the 24 shots we have now in 12.8 seconds. Besides this , I had another look at the spread sheet. If these were the numbers finalized for today: Rails will be able to do 8,480 damage (+1,696) before overheat, 12 round clips (+3), and 108 (+45) ammo total. Missiles wil be reduced to 5,400 (- 1074) damage before emptying the clip 10 (-2) round clips, 90 (-54) ammo total. Blasters will 5760 damage, 5,700 (- 792) damage before overheat, 75 (-130) round clips, 675 (-145)ammo total. I don't know how the future hull bonuses / SP sinks will affect the future meta. It looks like 10 skill books minimum are being b planned just for hulls( MBT, SHAV, 2 Faction SHAV, UHAV, DHAV, 2 Faction UHAV, 2 Faction DHAV). Everything may pan out, but i don't know all the details. That being said Current meta: This would certainly be the end of any tank that wasn't a rail. 20,352 damage per clip planned for rail tanks, massive ammo capacity mean the redline rails dont have to budge from their sniper nest the entire match. I can destroy installations without having to reload and still have enough ammo in the single clip to kill a tank. Blaster are a good second place choice. Nerfed pretty hard as well, but heat managment is the easiest on a blaster tank, so dumping a lot of damage is still possible. Considering every massive advantage the rail would have, up close you might have a shot. One vs one i certainly would pick it over the missiles. More damage, short cool down (you'll over heat cool down and start firing before a missile tank reloads) a shield blaster would tear a missile tank to shreds. Missile tanks, it was sweet knowing you but this is a nerf straight into the ground. Future meta or no, a proto missile tank simply wont do enough damage before either the rail or a blaster finishes it off. Its outclassed as AV rails and infantry AV by miles. Since its no good at being in the redline, mid range + long reloads + low damage, and soon to be low ROF there is very little incentive to use it at all anymore. Outclassed at every level. Its useless to play the tanker card. From my experience however, rails are being buffed far too much, missiles being nerfed far too much, and blasters look to be nerfed to shreds vs rails but should slaughter missiles tanks with ease. Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 206	Posted - 2015.02.05 21:55:00 - [369] - Quote I liked my RoF low slot mudules with a coolant mod Dakkadakkadakkadakkadakkadakka Edit: mudules... lol "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 1261	Posted - 2015.02.05 22:12:00 - [370] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes Agreed Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 433	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:24:00 - [371] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now Vote three my lord
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4765	Posted - 2015.02.05 23:27:00 - [372] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2876	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:26:00 - [373] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: I don't have the best memory, so I sometimes forget that I already commented on something. What's the big deal? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2876	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:27:00 - [374] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: The-Errorist wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss Would make them have higher damage per shot and lower RoF which is what AV turrets should be like which would also help with stopping shield regen and be generally easier to balance as AV. If shields can't regen witha hardener vs a blaster then armor will always win... So then where does that put the blaster? Anti-infantry role? Oh wait................... Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 213	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:27:00 - [375] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. I am seriously interested in what level your blasters are Pokey. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 306	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:10:00 - [376] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes Agreed How is armor being buffed? I didn't see any posts, it used to need the hardener reduction% buffed, but if shield regen is going to be nerfed then there is no reason to buff armor hardeners.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2878	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:11:00 - [377] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes Agreed How is armor being buffed? I didn't see any posts, it used to need the hardener reduction% buffed, but if shield regen is going to be nerfed then there is no reason to buff armor hardeners. Dunno if you've been tanking recently, but armor is in a really sad place right now. One hardener just doesn't do near enough attenuation. Its only use is on a dropship, where you have a better chance of escaping swarms. There's no reason for shield to be nerfed. Vehicles have been nerfed enough times to last a lifetime. Armor needs to be at the level shields are at, not bringing shields down to the level armor is at. If that were to be the case, then there'd be no reason to use vehicles at all, and the few pilots that are left would either leave, or go 100% infantry, which is what infantry seems to want anyway. Dunno why they can't find a different game to ruin. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2878	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:12:00 - [378] - Quote Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. I am seriously interested in what level your blasters are Pokey. You should ask him the last time he's played. (I checked) Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 309	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:45:00 - [379] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes Agreed How is armor being buffed? I didn't see any posts, it used to need the hardener reduction% buffed, but if shield regen is going to be nerfed then there is no reason to buff armor hardeners. Dunno if you've been tanking recently, but armor is in a really sad place right now. One hardener just doesn't do near enough attenuation. Its only use is on a dropship, where you have a better chance of escaping swarms. There's no reason for shield to be nerfed. Vehicles have been nerfed enough times to last a lifetime. Armor needs to be at the level shields are at, not bringing shields down to the level armor is at. If that were to be the case, then there'd be no reason to use vehicles at all, and the few pilots that are left would either leave, or go 100% infantry, which is what infantry seems to want anyway. Dunno why they can't find a different game to ruin. Yeah apparently shield regen is getting nerfed thanks to the spreadsheet wizards thinking a 4 second wait isn't long enough to wait before 168 shields start regenerating while armor immediately regen up to 300+ hps. I'm all for buffing armor hardeners to a more respectable level, but they decided to nerf shields instead.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 310	Posted - 2015.02.06 04:56:00 - [380] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. I am seriously interested in what level your blasters are Pokey. You should ask him the last time he's played. (I checked) Out of curiosity, when would that have been. If a tanked out gallente heavy shot a gek assault rifle at a tanked out gallente scout of equal skill with a duvolle assault rifle, on paper the heavy suit would win every time. ON PAPER. So explain why anyone would run anything other than a tanked out heavy suit with a gek. This is the problem with being a spreadsheet wizard that doesn't play the game. Scouts don't fight heavies toe to toe standing still.

Greiv Rabbah 13Art of War13 61	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:51:00 - [381] - Quote Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now Agree with aeon amadi. APC style is nice. http://youtu.be/eh1Cc0UbM8k However, why not have different types of each turret? http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turrets shows multiple types of blasters with different rates of fire, as well as different types of ammo useful for different situations. Also since I'm grinding the eve axe, we could use to have autocannon/artillery and pulse/beam lasers. When will we have something other than hybrid turrets and missiles? Some ppl wonder why old heads call CCPcaldari favoritists, but how will you ever reach balance without expanding beyond caldari fighting style weapons? Yes missiles and hybrid turrets are neat, but we only have one type of missile which is so noncanon it hurts (http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Launchers) we have infantry with guided missiles but no dumbfire missiles and vehicles with dumbfire missiles but no guided missiles. For missiles I think each size should have two varieties of missile launcher: guided and dumbfire (long range low rof and short range high rof, respectively) and a couple different types of warhead that can be loaded (including anti missile missiles). Still, were stuck for now with hybrid turrets and missiles but that's only suitable to caldari and some gallente. When are artillery and autocannons coming? Bomb launchers and drone bays? Pulse and beam turrets? Target painters and stasis webs? Cal tech got used a lot to show off the game, but we need a diversified battlefield for vehicles to be more fun and relevant to other players. If you take a squad of matari pilots with a scout lav using a target painter, a recon drop ship with a bomb launcher, a logistics drop ship supporting a hav with a large artillery cannon, and a mtac carrying a Gatling autocannon running alongside a mav with a full drone bay... And face them off against a squad of amarr pilots with a couple of logi drop ships, one spitting out a squad of sentinels and commandos sporting lazors galore and the other throwing webs, a scout lav running tracking disruptors, an imperial hav beaming lazory death accompanied by a smartbomb-toting lav backed up by an mtac with pulse lasers... I couldnt guess at who'd win, but I bet everybody would have fun, feel as a team, and the battle would be godly. It would be worthy of the glory found in those old trailers that drew us to dust 514 in the first place. But about turret ROF, I guess I think it should be all 3 for blasters, and slow long range lock-on missiles, fast short range dumbfire missiles, and extremely fast anti missile missiles. I think all 3 of both could be implemented without requiring any art assets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2880	Posted - 2015.02.06 06:20:00 - [382] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. I am seriously interested in what level your blasters are Pokey. You should ask him the last time he's played. (I checked) Out of curiosity, when would that have been. If a tanked out gallente heavy shot a gek assault rifle at a tanked out gallente scout of equal skill with a duvolle assault rifle, on paper the heavy suit would win every time. ON PAPER. So explain why anyone would run anything other than a tanked out heavy suit with a gek. This is the problem with being a spreadsheet wizard that doesn't play the game. Scouts don't fight heavies toe to toe standing still. You can check by adding to friends. It's been at least a month, if not more. Dunno who you're calling a spreadsheet wizard. I've made a few, but I'm terrible at math, so I can't work numbers, ie I can't theorycraft fits and work out eHP and DPS. But yeah, it comes down to experience. Something few don't have (not you Doc).................. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6967	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:42:00 - [383] - Quote The trick is to ask a spreadsheet wizard to format the cells so you can copy/paste until you learn how to do it yourself. It saves a lot of agony. AV
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4775	Posted - 2015.02.06 16:35:00 - [384] - Quote Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: what is your feeling on blaster ROF, not DPS, just feeling. do you generally like the dum dum dum dum dum (current) or you prefer dum...dum...dum...dum more like an APC turret from other fpss or dum.....dum......dum like a tank from other fpss ;) vote now I still don't want them to be anywhere close to a rail, there is a sweet spot there, i think also missiles, i feel the rof is way too high right now I think moving to a lower fire rate for the Blaster is a good step, as I think they perform too much like an Autocannon right now. I am seriously interested in what level your blasters are Pokey. Level 5 on Larges, I think smalls are at 3. I'd note that a decrease in fire rate would have to be paired with a decrease in dispersion. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K General Tso's Alliance 393	Posted - 2015.02.06 19:47:00 - [385] - Quote Brush Master wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, There will not be a Large Fragmented Missile Launcher in Phase 1. Only Small Fragmented, and the current Small Missile Launcher will be converted to an AV weapon. [/url] If you are focusing on tank rebalance, I would suggest sticking to large turrets, once you touch small turrets your are greatly effecting dropships. I do not believe small turrets are currently a big factor in tanking. I assume by your description that you are reintroducing Small Fragmented for the purpose of dropships to use with larger splash radius but reduced alpha damage. If the current small missile is to become AV what does the railgun become? as stated in the past, railguns were AV, small was hybrid and blaster was infantry. Right now, the most viable turret that most every dropship will be a missile due to range, damage and tracking. Gunners simple have a hard time hitting someone and have a short time to get a kill, thus missile. Dropships can not stay put long enough in most games for blasters and rails to work effectively. Just looking at my games over the past week, gunners ranged from 4-10 kills with either an adv or proto missile in a standard defensive built dropship. Please use caution if you touch small turrets. Small turrets are a huge deal to tank v. tank combat when you have crewed vehicles, 2 small rail turrets + whatever your main turret is will pretty much guarantee you a win inside 180 meters or so
The-Errorist 1015	Posted - 2015.02.07 09:35:00 - [386] - Quote I like the following changes for large turrets: Relatively increased alpha DPS of blasters Lower RoF blaster with higher damage Increase reload time for and rails Some splash for rails, but I think 1.5m should be enough What I don't like: Increased reload time for missiles when they have a 1k damage clip size nerf; it's too much at once. Damage to overheat is a bit too high for rails compared to blasters Railguns having more ammo than missiles makes no sense. My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos Racial tanks
D3LTA Blitzkrieg II 0uter.Heaven 207	Posted - 2015.02.07 12:21:00 - [387] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Missiles are being nerfed while armor is buffed at the same time? This none sense sounds familiar. Should leave turrets alone until AFTER the hull changes Agreed How is armor being buffed? I didn't see any posts, it used to need the hardener reduction% buffed, but if shield regen is going to be nerfed then there is no reason to buff armor hardeners. Dunno if you've been tanking recently, but armor is in a really sad place right now. One hardener just doesn't do near enough attenuation. Its only use is on a dropship, where you have a better chance of escaping swarms. There's no reason for shield to be nerfed. Vehicles have been nerfed enough times to last a lifetime. Armor needs to be at the level shields are at, not bringing shields down to the level armor is at. If that were to be the case, then there'd be no reason to use vehicles at all, and the few pilots that are left would either leave, or go 100% infantry, which is what infantry seems to want anyway. Dunno why they can't find a different game to ruin. Yeah apparently shield regen is getting nerfed thanks to the spreadsheet wizards thinking a 4 second wait isn't long enough to wait before 168 shields start regenerating while armor immediately regen up to 300+ hps. I'm all for buffing armor hardeners to a more respectable level, but they decided to nerf shields instead. lol shield nerf is the last thing we need. Instead of 1 useless tank, now we get 2 useless tanks. Not only do boosters not work under fire, but the regen delay cant be decreased using skills. Only the depleted shield delay can be reduced from 10 to 7 seconds. All these factors compound and give us the bigger picture. Shields dont need a nerf. >.<
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6996	Posted - 2015.02.07 12:49:00 - [388] - Quote Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing. Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:20:00 - [389] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing. Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. It was good before 1.8. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6998	Posted - 2015.02.07 15:27:00 - [390] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing. Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. It was good before 1.8. and it died in a fire like it needed to. AV

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2312	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:01:00 - [391] - Quote I'm just looking at the proposed large missile turret and it just doesn't feel right. It's being nerfed way too hard. The large blaster and railgun will simply outperform it in every aspect. The large blaster has about 10% more DPS, does more damage than one full missile clip up to its overheat, and its cooldown I presume is much shorter than the 12 second reload time for the large missile. Plus it has the greatest reliability against infantry of the large turrets. The large railgun has around 10% less DPS, but deals even more damage than the large blaster until overheat, and again I presume that the large railgun will have a cooldown time that's much shorter than 12 second. Plus, the railgun has greater accuracy and a much faster projectile speed than the large missile. So where does this put the large missile turret? Absolutely nowhere. It lost its high DPS so it can't maximize damage done against another vehicle before hardeners come online, considering it had the smallest damage per clip it was necessary for it to deal as much damage as quickly as possible. Now it's even worse with a reduced damage per clip and increased reload time. It will take the large missile turret a full 18 seconds to deal the same amount of damage a large blaster does in about 6 seconds to overheat, and 20 seconds to do the same damage a large railgun deals in about 8 seconds to overheat. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this. Something needs to change about the proposed large missile turret. I see three options. 1) give it a fair amount of more DPS than the large blaster so it can maximize the damage dealt against a vehicle with such a small clip size. 2) increase clip size or damage per missile so that one full clip deals between 8k-10k damage, since the large railgun deals that much damage to overheat but has a quicker reload speed. 3) Decrease reload time significantly, like down to 4 seconds or something, so that it can compete with the other turrets in damage versus time. Edit: one last thing I forgot to add: max ammo. Giving each large turret the same amount of full clips is not the way to go. Each large turret should have around the same damage per max ammo. I see no reason why the large railgun can deal almost 5 times as much damage without needing a supply depot. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2882	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:16:00 - [392] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing. Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. It was good before 1.8. and it died in a fire like it needed to. Spoken by someone that has never used a vehicle. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 241	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:18:00 - [393] - Quote Very much agree with the post above. With this proposal, Large Missiles will be sh!t. You won't be able to kill any tank besides MLT or Base stat tanks in one mag, then you have the terribad reload time, as well as the fact that the railguns will be getting MORE ammo when they don't ever even need to go to a supply depot now unless they destroy every installation on the map as well as a few vehicles. In general, missiles are going to be needed to hell and I disagree with that very much Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
DarthJT5 Random Gunz RISE of LEGION 243	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:21:00 - [394] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Your argument over the triple rep madrugar without actually naming it is amusing. Triple/quad repping an armor tank anywhere near a forge gun is suicide. It's only survivable versus swarms. It was good before 1.8. and it died in a fire like it needed to. Spoken by someone that has never used a vehicle. Spkr. Triple rep Madrugars were literally invulnerable to EVERY form of AV on the field unless people were sending 3-4 Proto swarmers or forgers at you. The only thing that could kill them in a 1v1 was a 100% accurate missile barrage to the weak spot, and even then they could nitro away and get all their health back in 8 seconds. You believe this was balanced? Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 820	Posted - 2015.02.07 16:54:00 - [395] - Quote Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current. Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs. UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer. Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2313	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:01:00 - [396] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current. Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs. UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer. Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV. But so will the large blaster benefit from a 25% damage bonus. Anyways, there's an entire discussion in the other thread about DHAVs and UHAVs and what needs to change from the current proposal. Turret balance should be independent from hull balance. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 820	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:04:00 - [397] - Quote @ Sorry to double post, but i also noticed that you have current small rails listed as 12 shots to overheat. Its only 12 shots to over heat on a double pilot stacked Rail incubus. On a Tank its 7 - 8 shots to over heat. Will log in to double check. I'm used to firing 5 round bursts from my Inc when i use the small rail. It certainly isn't 12 shots base. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 820	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:06:00 - [398] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: Take into consideration the Hull bonuses, Missiles will do 25% more damaga on a Proto Caldari Destroyer HAV. Once you have the destroyer maxed you will have roughly the same damage output as current. Until then, its hard to envion the future tank meta revolving around shield blaster tanks or shield rail UHAVs. UHAVs will have a resistace bonus to hybrid weapons, and shields have a natural resistance to missile. With the huge amount of damage being afforded by equiping a large rail turret, only Blaster destroyers have a shot against you. Once of your crew jumps out with Pro swarms, its lights out Gal destroyer. Your best bet would be a gunlogi with an Ion cannon/rail, or another rail UHAV. But so will the large blaster benefit from a 25% damage bonus. Anyways, there's an entire discussion in the other thread about DHAVs and UHAVs and what needs to change from the current proposal. Turret balance should be independent from hull balance. I agree that turret and tank balance need to be independent. Just deriving Rattaties ideas on turret balance seem to be directly tied to bonuses planed for the tanks. Thats the only reason i'm bringin the tanks discussion here. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 226	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:25:00 - [399] - Quote Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash. Speed it up, or leave it alone. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 226	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:27:00 - [400] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: @ Sorry to double post, but i also noticed that you have current small rails listed as 12 shots to overheat. Its only 12 shots to over heat on a double pilot stacked Rail incubus. On a Tank its 7 - 8 shots to over heat. Will log in to double check. I'm used to firing 5 round bursts from my Inc when i use the small rail. It certainly isn't 12 shots base. Seventh shot will overheat. Have to single shot-3 round burst to manage heat as it is. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4782	Posted - 2015.02.07 18:44:00 - [401] - Quote Devadander wrote: Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash. Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7015	Posted - 2015.02.07 20:00:00 - [402] - Quote one thing I think should be kept in mind is the higher the RoF it seems the WORSE hit detection gets in my experience. Accelerating the blaster might not be a great idea. AV
The-Errorist 1022	Posted - 2015.02.07 21:02:00 - [403] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: one thing I think should be kept in mind is the higher the RoF it seems the WORSE hit detection gets in my experience. Accelerating the blaster might not be a great idea. Yeah and I remember how the breach AR was the only good weapon in closed beta because of this. My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos Racial tanks
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1425	Posted - 2015.02.07 22:41:00 - [404] - Quote Are there any updates to the main document? Mine has some divide by Zero failures. Are there any plans to do a similar genocidal nerf on small turrets? Are there any dates or release numbers associated with this effort? I thought there were going to be new tanks (old tanks, whatever) but my last login revealed nothing. I haven't run any vehicle since early September. The nerfs and various changes took most of the fun out of them for me. And the assault drop ship got it worse with the hammering of the small turrets when combined with invisible AV (yet to be fixed). Flying was the last thing I was doing to pry some fun from the cold dead grip of CCP. What I am lurking about now is this thread regarding significantly nerfing large turrets. The heavy heat build up in rail guns is actually quite funny when the gun will empty a clip by itself, regardless of heat. Previously you could build up two overheats with a clip or a clip and a half. Not that the turret would actually stop firing when it overheated itself. The large blaster meant you had to shoot it much like the now useless Tactical Assault Rifles (lvl 5 assault rifle). Only quick bursts as everything else is just spewing wasted rounds. Yet that turret is going to get even worse as well. And missile tanks will become useless once again, if you can get your turrets to fire. Actually all three turret types suffer the same basic dysfunctions. What fun! Is there any plan at all for chasing down this obvious client/server network communication bug? Specifically the turrets firing themselves, emptying their now limited supplies, or simply not working at all? Because that is the major reason I am just watching. If the weapons actually work then adjusting to the Nerf/Buff cycle that CCP is so enthralled with might be manageable. But if they never fix the main bug affecting turrets, I hardly see the point of yet another Nerf cycle. Whatever, Good Luck Dusters. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7017	Posted - 2015.02.07 23:13:00 - [405] - Quote ^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled. AV
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2846	Posted - 2015.02.08 00:54:00 - [406] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: ^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled. lol click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1426	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:04:00 - [407] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: ^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled. What? Which lesson was I teaching? I am still interested in Dust. Just wondering what the latest changes are working but the Nerf to large turrets is a concern. Of course I might have logged in bug my DS3 controller just bit the ... dirt. Hardly works well enough to play a DVD and navigating Dust menus was way too much trouble for the little thing (always headed left which exits many selections). My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2846	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:35:00 - [408] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: ^ Pack it up guys, I think we all just got schooled. What? Which lesson was I teaching? I am still interested in Dust. Just wondering what the latest changes are working but the Nerf to large turrets is a concern. Of course I might have logged in bug my DS3 controller just bit the ... dirt. Hardly works well enough to play a DVD and navigating Dust menus was way too much trouble for the little thing (always headed left which exits many selections). Scarcasm is not your strong suit I see. There is a thing called a balance pass. This is what that is. Turrets in 1.7 were insta gank things, and those are going away. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1426	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:52:00 - [409] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Scarcasm is not your strong suit I see. There is a thing called a balance pass. This is what that is. Turrets in 1.7 were insta gank things, and those are going away. Okay, cool. Sarcasm is something I am actually good at but I have been slapped by CCP for using that particular skill set here. It wasn't clear to me this is a balance pass, or intended to be such. The numbers looked like a Nerf with the large heat changes. And I really would like to have turrets that fired when I pressed the button, and only then. But that is just me. As a retired software engineer I get picky about the basics working. Anyway, thanks for the response. Breakin Stuff was probably out beating a dead horse somewhere. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 226	Posted - 2015.02.08 04:00:00 - [410] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash. Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it. Sorry if you felt like you were being called out. Must be a chip on your shoulder. I know Godin was one of few tankers on my level back in the old days, but pretty sure he was rail. I've seen spkr in a tank a lot but never blaster, mostly rails, sometimes missiles. I see breakin stuff breakin stuff a lot, but that's on foot lol. (but he also admits he is pure foot action) I'm a blaster tanker. Ask around. I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP) If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls. Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes? Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean. TL;DR I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing. Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry. Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion. "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4828	Posted - 2015.02.08 04:55:00 - [411] - Quote Devadander wrote: I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP) If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls. Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes? Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean. TL;DR I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing. Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry. Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion. Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium. Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7019	Posted - 2015.02.08 11:40:00 - [412] - Quote Pokey's had to put up with spkr's snide comments one time too many in the HAV threads denigrating his character. Please make an effort to separate your statements from the riffraff. I'd complain about him denigrating mine, but I'm content to point and laugh at him in turn so it works out. AV
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 2890	Posted - 2015.02.08 15:26:00 - [413] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey's had to put up with spkr's snide comments one time too many in the HAV threads denigrating his character. Please make an effort to separate your statements from the riffraff. I'd complain about him denigrating mine, but I'm content to point and laugh at him in turn so it works out. How many times do I have to say that I'm commenting about the ideas, not the person? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.08 16:06:00 - [414] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP) If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls. Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes? Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean. TL;DR I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing. Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry. Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion. Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium. Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering. EDIT: Also hardly a guilt thing, but people have been slinging around the "Oh you must not know what you're talking about" bull. I suppose the main difference is that I don't run tanks constantly, I use them situationally when I feel there is a need then I recall it when I'm done. So if there is a tank that needs to be dealt with or a dropship causing issues, I'll call the tank in, kill them, then recall it. In general I use HAVs as AV platforms anyways, so the number of player kills I get with them is pretty low since I typically am ignoring infantry. I've been playing the blaster a bit more of late. It's decent V vs V. With a standard blaster (impossible to do better on my maddie) I tend to hold my own against certain fits, coming out on top many times. Though as a few have mentioned, and now something I've seen for myself, a double hardened gunnlogi will out perform it. There just isn't a possibility to break through that regen. I think addressing that with a blaster would make it perform much better in a close encounter with another tank. Blaster fire should at the very least, PAUSE SHIELD REGEN. I have found I hate more than anything encountering double hardened gunnlogis with a blaster when I KNOW I should hold a large advantage given my turret rotation and bonus damage against shields. I SHOULD hold an advantage, not necessarily translating into a win, but an advantage if these things are used correctly. As it is, blaster fire is stonewalled against that which it should be strong against, shields, double hardened or not. But to offer my suggestion, a decrease to RoF and an increase to damage per shot, should allow it to punch through the shield regen. A lower RoF would also decrease the dispersion build up slightly I assume, making it a little easier with infantry, but a huge difference against larger targets at range. I think the blaster is set at 150M range but in reality you need to be within 50 - 75 meters to cause any noticeable damage to large targets largely due to the horrible dispersion. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:21:00 - [415] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: I prefer leave it alone more than speed up or slow down. It's already luck, even with skill, to kill ANYTHING with a blaster these days (besides a rail installation... and they still don't shoot back btw CCP) If we slow it down it needs a damage buff, and lower decay. Speed it up would need lower initial dispersion with rapid decay, much like the smalls. Either one the range is not HAV vs HAV competitive. The autocannon we are leaning towards would have better range than a blaster anyway. Yes? Try running from a rail tank, then a missile tank, then a blaster tank, and you will see what I mean. TL;DR I didn't accuse you personally. If you included yourself, it was a guilt thing. Nobody is afraid of a blaster tank anymore. Not pilots, not infantry. Slowing RoF won't help that situation unless it gets more damage, more range, and less dispersion. Well obviously the damage per shot would go up if the fire rate dropped, I wasn't advocating a drop in DPS by any means. Honestly if the weapon is going to be better at dealing with infantry than the other Larges, then it needs to be less dependent on the RNG gods. Lowering dispersion, lowering fire rate, up the damage, and I think it'll perform better in general. Not back to the pinpoint it used to be, but a happy medium. Id honestly prefer a higher DPS, very short range model. I mean yes you're going to have the range disadvantage but the DPS advantage should be staggering. EDIT: Also hardly a guilt thing, but people have been slinging around the "Oh you must not know what you're talking about" bull. I suppose the main difference is that I don't run tanks constantly, I use them situationally when I feel there is a need then I recall it when I'm done. So if there is a tank that needs to be dealt with or a dropship causing issues, I'll call the tank in, kill them, then recall it. In general I use HAVs as AV platforms anyways, so the number of player kills I get with them is pretty low since I typically am ignoring infantry. I've been playing the blaster a bit more of late. It's decent V vs V. With a standard blaster (impossible to do better on my maddie) I tend to hold my own against certain fits, coming out on top many times. Though as a few have mentioned, and now something I've seen for myself, a double hardened gunnlogi will out perform it. There just isn't a possibility to break through that regen. I think addressing that with a blaster would make it perform much better in a close encounter with another tank. Blaster fire should at the very least, PAUSE SHIELD REGEN. I have found I hate more than anything encountering double hardened gunnlogis with a blaster when I KNOW I should hold a large advantage given my turret rotation and bonus damage against shields. I SHOULD hold an advantage, not necessarily translating into a win, but an advantage if these things are used correctly. As it is, blaster fire is stonewalled against that which it should be strong against, shields, double hardened or not. But to offer my suggestion, a decrease to RoF and an increase to damage per shot, should allow it to punch through the shield regen. A lower RoF would also decrease the dispersion build up slightly I assume, making it a little easier with infantry, but a huge difference against larger targets at range. I think the blaster is set at 150M range but in reality you need to be within 50 - 75 meters to cause any noticeable damage to large targets largely due to the horrible dispersion. If you see a gunlogi hit his hardners he will be paper thin in a little over 20 seconds. Depending on engagement Maddie with nitro will have an easy time. With fittings being fixed I am guessing an ion blaster would do more shredding, especially with dam mod.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2847	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:27:00 - [416] - Quote Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash. Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it. Sorry if you felt like you were being called out. Must be a chip on your shoulder. I know Godin was one of few tankers on my level back in the old days, but pretty sure he was rail. I've seen spkr in a tank a lot but never blaster, mostly rails, sometimes missiles. I see breakin stuff breakin stuff a lot, but that's on foot lol. (but he also admits he is pure foot action) I've used all turrets since day 1, mostly blaster. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2315	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:34:00 - [417] - Quote I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post. Link -First graph: Damage Over Time This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s. There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph. However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt. -Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time. -Third graph: CPU Vs PG Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun. -My suggestions: I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change. I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest* reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph. Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4846	Posted - 2015.02.08 17:44:00 - [418] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:23:00 - [419] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4849	Posted - 2015.02.08 19:30:00 - [420] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit. To be fair, different tiered blasters should simply do more or less damage than each other, and specific tiers should not functionally work differently because their damage is too low compared to the shield threshold. It would be similar if a STD Plasma Rifle didn't stop enemy Shield recharge but an ADV did, the disadvantage between tiers should simply be damage, not functionality. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2849	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:04:00 - [421] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit. These kind of arguments don't even make sense. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:26:00 - [422] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit. These kind of arguments don't even make sense. Basic blaster doesn't do enough damage to proto hardened shields doesn't mean nerf shields or buff basic blaster, make it so ion cannon will fit on madrugar.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:29:00 - [423] - Quote Harpyja wrote: I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post. Link -First graph: Damage Over Time This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s. There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph. However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt. -Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time. -Third graph: CPU Vs PG Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun. -My suggestions: I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change. I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest* reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph. Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700. DHAV gives missiles and blasters at least 25% permanent bonus at level 5, rails will not get bonus. DHAV will push forward and backwards over and over so only half the rail shots connect due to poor tracking.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7020	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:38:00 - [424] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit. These kind of arguments don't even make sense. Basic blaster doesn't do enough damage to proto hardened shields doesn't mean nerf shields or buff basic blaster, make it so ion cannon will fit on madrugar. even a militia weapon should be able to kill a proto target when wielded by a skilled operator. there's no reality where an STD blaster turret should be unable to break shield regen on ANY HAV. the perception that this is ok is half the problem with the damn gunnlogi. AV
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2316	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:41:00 - [425] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Harpyja wrote: I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post. Link -First graph: Damage Over Time This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s. There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph. However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt. -Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time. -Third graph: CPU Vs PG Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun. -My suggestions: I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change. I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest* reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph. Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700. DHAV gives missiles and blasters at least 25% permanent bonus at level 5, rails will not get bonus. DHAV will push forward and backwards over and over so only half the rail shots connect due to poor tracking. So the large missile launcher will only be viable on the Caldari DHAV, and nothing else? You've missed the point I was trying to make. Each turret should be equally viable, independent of which hull you put it on. The DHAV is only there for specialization, not for making a useless turret viable. Look at the turrets themselves, and forget about the hulls for the moment. What if every infantry weapon was only viable on one dropsuit and each dropsuit only affected one weapon? You wouldn't like that, would you? "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:51:00 - [426] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Harpyja wrote: I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post. Link -First graph: Damage Over Time This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s. There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph. However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt. -Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time. -Third graph: CPU Vs PG Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun. -My suggestions: I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change. I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest* reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph. Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700. DHAV gives missiles and blasters at least 25% permanent bonus at level 5, rails will not get bonus. DHAV will push forward and backwards over and over so only half the rail shots connect due to poor tracking. So the large missile launcher will only be viable on the Caldari DHAV, and nothing else? You've missed the point I was trying to make. Each turret should be equally viable, independent of which hull you put it on. The DHAV is only there for specialization, not for making a useless turret viable. Look at the turrets themselves, and forget about the hulls for the moment. What if every infantry weapon was only viable on one dropsuit and each dropsuit only affected one weapon? You wouldn't like that, would you? What, like amar assault's and scrambler? Commandos with sniper rifles, rail rifles ( cal) and swarms ( min), assault rifles and gal assault... Sounds like Dust to me.. If you drive a missile tank, that isn't a DHAV, up to the front of a rail tank and just sit there, then you asked to get popped.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2316	Posted - 2015.02.08 20:56:00 - [427] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Harpyja wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Harpyja wrote: I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post. Link -First graph: Damage Over Time This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s. There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph. However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt. -Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time. -Third graph: CPU Vs PG Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun. -My suggestions: I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change. I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest* reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph. Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700. DHAV gives missiles and blasters at least 25% permanent bonus at level 5, rails will not get bonus. DHAV will push forward and backwards over and over so only half the rail shots connect due to poor tracking. So the large missile launcher will only be viable on the Caldari DHAV, and nothing else? You've missed the point I was trying to make. Each turret should be equally viable, independent of which hull you put it on. The DHAV is only there for specialization, not for making a useless turret viable. Look at the turrets themselves, and forget about the hulls for the moment. What if every infantry weapon was only viable on one dropsuit and each dropsuit only affected one weapon? You wouldn't like that, would you? What, like amar assault's and scrambler? Commandos with sniper rifles, rail rifles ( cal) and swarms ( min), assault rifles and gal assault... Sounds like Dust to me.. If you drive a missile tank, that isn't a DHAV, up to the front of a rail tank and just sit there, then you asked to get popped. You still don't get it, do you? It shouldn't take a role bonus just so that a useless weapon is on par with another weapon that requires no bonuses to be useful? Stop trolling around and go find some other game to ruin. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:00:00 - [428] - Quote Basic blaster doesn't do enough damage to proto hardened shields doesn't mean nerf shields or buff basic blaster, make it so ion cannon will fit on madrugar. [/quote] even a militia weapon should be able to kill a proto target when wielded by a skilled operator. there's no reality where an STD blaster turret should be unable to break shield regen on ANY HAV. the perception that this is ok is half the problem with the damn gunnlogi.[/quote] It is literally double hardened for a maximum of 30 seconds, a skilled operator would get him to trigger hardeners and wait out thertimer from safety ie nitro away, then come back and pop him while he panics heading for the redline. You are right, a skilled operator should be able to win in militia gear, not stand in front of full proto and tank more damage than full proto and deal more damage than proto. Stop trying to nerf things that are working and concentrate on fixing that which is broken. He is focusing on the double hardened gunlogi which can tank the damage a basic blaster dishes out for 30 seconds. After which the cooldown is around 40 seconds where the Madrugar will still be repping, and if armor hardeners are ever fixed still hardened .
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:33:00 - [429] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Harpyja wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Harpyja wrote: I decided to put a few of the proposed large turret attributes into graphs/plots. My suggestions will be at the end of this post. Link -First graph: Damage Over Time This graph simulates damage over time if each turret were to begin shooting at time=0s. The large missile launcher and blaster turret have no charge-up, so they start off with a non-zero damage value, whereas the large railgun starts at time=0.35s. There's a few things I want to point out that I find striking. Even though the large railgun has the least DPS, it manages to maintain the highest damage dealt at any given point. Note that the blaster and railgun are graphed up to one shot before overheat (railgun overheats on the fifth and blaster overheats on the 32nd). Unfortunately there is no cooldown time given so far, meaning that this was the furthest I could plot the graph. However, one thing that you should see is how the large missile launcher compares with the other two. It will deal the least amount of damage but has the longest reload time. I believe it is safe to say that the cooldown times on the large railgun and blaster will be much shorter than the reload time. This means that over any given period of time, the large missile launcher will always have the least amount of accumulated damage dealt. -Second graph: Damage Per Clip Vs Reload Time The large missile turret stands out like a sore thumb in this graph. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, yet suffers from the longest reload time. -Third graph: CPU Vs PG Again, the large missile turret sticks out. It costs more CPU and PG than the large railgun. -My suggestions: I think that it is fair to say that the large missile launcher will not be competitive. It deals the least amount of damage per clip, which also happens to be smaller than the amount of damage the large blaster and railgun deal to overheat, but also has the longest reload time. Something needs to change. I think the best option that would put the large missile launcher into a competitive position is if it actually has the fastest* reload time. I am basing this suggestion off of the first two graphs. Having a reload time that is about as long as the cooldown time on the large railgun and blaster means that it will not lag behind in damage application over time. This will put its reload time at around 6 seconds (based off of current cooldown times IIRC), which makes an almost linear fit on the second graph. Another thing that needs to change which I have noticed ever since 1.7, is that the PG cost of the large missile launcher needs to be less than the large railgun. The large missile launcher has the highest CPU cost of all of the turrets, so it is reasonable that it should have the smallest PG cost. Making a linear curve of best fit on the third graph will put its PG cost at about 700. DHAV gives missiles and blasters at least 25% permanent bonus at level 5, rails will not get bonus. DHAV will push forward and backwards over and over so only half the rail shots connect due to poor tracking. So the large missile launcher will only be viable on the Caldari DHAV, and nothing else? You've missed the point I was trying to make. Each turret should be equally viable, independent of which hull you put it on. The DHAV is only there for specialization, not for making a useless turret viable. Look at the turrets themselves, and forget about the hulls for the moment. What if every infantry weapon was only viable on one dropsuit and each dropsuit only affected one weapon? You wouldn't like that, would you? What, like amar assault's and scrambler? Commandos with sniper rifles, rail rifles ( cal) and swarms ( min), assault rifles and gal assault... Sounds like Dust to me.. If you drive a missile tank, that isn't a DHAV, up to the front of a rail tank and just sit there, then you asked to get popped. You still don't get it, do you? It shouldn't take a role bonus just so that a useless weapon is on par with another weapon that requires no bonuses to be useful? Stop trolling around and go find some other game to ruin. why so mad though lol if you can't figure away out to use your highslots properly for a missile tank fit with 5 highs on shields and 3 highs on armor then i don't know what to say other than don't park your missile tank in front of rails and just hold down fire expecting +75 +75 +50. Try using rails, it seems more your style if you can't manage with 8000 insta damage and unskilled 12 sec reload.
The-Errorist 1027	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:39:00 - [430] - Quote Will you guys stop calling standard stuff basic!? Also you guys realize that proto hardeners give the same damage reduction as militia, so stop comparing stuff to specifically proto hardeners. My Basic medium frames, logis & Commandos Racial tanks

Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:45:00 - [431] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Will you guys stop calling standard stuff basic!? Also you guys realize that proto hardeners give the same damage reduction as militia, so stop comparing stuff to specifically proto hardeners. That downtime though
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2316	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:46:00 - [432] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: why so mad though lol if you can't figure away out to use your highslots properly for a missile tank fit with 5 highs on shields and 3 highs on armor then i don't know what to say other than don't park your missile tank in front of rails and just hold down fire expecting +75 +75 +50. Try using rails, it seems more your style if you can't manage with 8000 insta damage and unskilled 12 sec reload. Please, I didn't make the graphs and an attempt at constructive feedback to show that the large missile launcher is not on par with the other turrets only to have you come around and try to make senseless arguments and claims that it's perfectly fine for a weapon to be useless if there's a role bonus that puts it on par with the other weapons. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17020	Posted - 2015.02.08 21:57:00 - [433] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: why so mad though lol if you can't figure away out to use your highslots properly for a missile tank fit with 5 highs on shields and 3 highs on armor then i don't know what to say other than don't park your missile tank in front of rails and just hold down fire expecting +75 +75 +50. Try using rails, it seems more your style if you can't manage with 8000 insta damage and unskilled 12 sec reload. Lol at player who suggests a main gun that fires every 1.8 seconds takes skill to use. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 22:00:00 - [434] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Doc DDD wrote: why so mad though lol if you can't figure away out to use your highslots properly for a missile tank fit with 5 highs on shields and 3 highs on armor then i don't know what to say other than don't park your missile tank in front of rails and just hold down fire expecting +75 +75 +50. Try using rails, it seems more your style if you can't manage with 8000 insta damage and unskilled 12 sec reload. Please, I didn't make the graphs and an attempt at constructive feedback to show that the large missile launcher is not on par with the other turrets only to have you come around and try to make senseless arguments and claims that it's perfectly fine for a weapon to be useless if there's a role bonus that puts it on par with the other weapons. They are nice graphs The missile turret does lots of damage before the rail even gets a shot off. Good time for missile tank to take cover or move on to a target 12 seconds away. I understand what you are trying to say, but we have different opinions with regard to your worries.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 313	Posted - 2015.02.08 22:02:00 - [435] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: why so mad though lol if you can't figure away out to use your highslots properly for a missile tank fit with 5 highs on shields and 3 highs on armor then i don't know what to say other than don't park your missile tank in front of rails and just hold down fire expecting +75 +75 +50. Try using rails, it seems more your style if you can't manage with 8000 insta damage and unskilled 12 sec reload. Lol at player who suggests a main gun that fires every 1.8 seconds takes skill to use. where did I say it takes skill to shoot 1.8 times a second, I said that's what he should try and use if he can't figure out how to work his fits in different engagements... ie more point and shoot, less flank and timing and cover.
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2316	Posted - 2015.02.09 00:00:00 - [436] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: They are nice graphs The missile turret does lots of damage before the rail even gets a shot off. Good time for missile tank to take cover or move on to a target 12 seconds away. I understand what you are trying to say, but we have different opinions with regard to your worries. I shouldn't even be replying to you anymore; you even failed to read the first graph correctly. Your idea of how a missile HAV is supposed to engage is not how things are supposed to be balanced. It would make more sense if the missile launcher could unleash all 5400 damage in 1-2 seconds, making the missile HAV use a peek-a-boo style of combat. However, it requires a full 4.5 seconds, which is almost the same time it would take to overheat the blaster or railgun. You cannot just launch your volley anymore and hide, because you'll be getting shot at for more damage when you are firing. Then you have a full 12 seconds to reload, whereas the other HAV needs only a few seconds to cooldown and finish you off. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Caeli SineDeo Imperfects Negative-Feedback 730	Posted - 2015.02.09 05:45:00 - [437] - Quote Old player giving some feed back from the good old days. From my experience the thing that has made the rail jack of all trades is not the weapons themselves but vehicle physics. Back in E3 Uprising build Nano fiber Tanks where a viable option. This allowed for fast tanks that could turn on a dime and have good foward/reverse acceleration. Back during this build I could run nano fiber plus blaster and beat rail tanks in close range combat by circling them. Because of the rails slow rotation speeds. But in current build these physics got more smashed together. Turning tight circles around other tanks is not easy. This is the biggest thing that has pushed me away from Dust 514 Vehicle physics became clunky. And when they removed nanofibers you had no way to remotely effect these things. So without the speed and the handling/turning it is hard to take advantage of the quick rotation of the blaster and missile turrets.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7023	Posted - 2015.02.09 08:56:00 - [438] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey's had to put up with spkr's snide comments one time too many in the HAV threads denigrating his character. Please make an effort to separate your statements from the riffraff. I'd complain about him denigrating mine, but I'm content to point and laugh at him in turn so it works out. How many times do I have to say that I'm commenting about the ideas, not the person? Then quit trying to tell people they are unqualified to comment on a vidya game they play. have a helpful link. Also look up the word : hypocrisy. AV
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 831	Posted - 2015.02.09 10:52:00 - [439] - Quote Harpyja wrote: charts Harpya, can you make an extended chart that continues to show damage over longer periods of time? I would like too see how long each turret needs to hit a damage threshold. Lets just say how long will each tank need to empty the entire ammo supply, and chart that damage over time. That way, we can see if several full clip bursts from missiles can out pace blaster damage. And how much blaster/rail damage can be done after each cooldown/reload? A s in Time x axis, damage y axis and the line graph marking the total damage over time until each tank finishes ther ammo supply. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC Bad Intention 1262	Posted - 2015.02.09 14:56:00 - [440] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: stuff Well my guess is that this is likely due to the fact that the Gunnlogi is resisting enough damage that your blaster shots are not doing enough per shot to break the recharge threshold. Decreasing the fire rate and upping the damage per shot would work to lessen this effect. Or don't use a basic blaster fit. These kind of arguments don't even make sense. Basic blaster doesn't do enough damage to proto hardened shields doesn't mean nerf shields or buff basic blaster, make it so ion cannon will fit on madrugar. It doesn't do enough damage to a basic hardened fit either. I've tested this with a proto ion against duel hardeners to the same result btw. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Harpyja Legio DXIV 2319	Posted - 2015.02.09 17:13:00 - [441] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Harpyja wrote: charts Harpya, can you make an extended chart that continues to show damage over longer periods of time? I would like too see how long each turret needs to hit a damage threshold. Lets just say how long will each tank need to empty the entire ammo supply, and chart that damage over time. That way, we can see if several full clip bursts from missiles can out pace blaster damage. And how much blaster/rail damage can be done after each cooldown/reload? A s in Time x axis, damage y axis and the line graph marking the total damage over time until each tank finishes ther ammo supply. I'm afraid that without the cooldown times on the blaster and rail, I've plotted them as far as I could. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 231	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:07:00 - [442] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Devadander wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Devadander wrote: Most of the people here screaming for blaster changes I never see actually using blasters. Lowering RoF will make them trash. Speed it up, or leave it alone. I would argue its a matter of, do you want it accurate with a lower fire rate? Or higher fire rate with current dispersion? I think both options have merit. The first requiring you to time your shots so they can hit a smaller moving target, and the latter being rolling the dice to hope the RNG puts the shots where they need to go. Are you trying to criticize me for wanting the turret to be more reliant on skill than luck? Also note that I've never seen you use a blaster either, but I understand that such anecdotal evidence means practically nothing, so I don't make baseless accusations because of it. Sorry if you felt like you were being called out. Must be a chip on your shoulder. I know Godin was one of few tankers on my level back in the old days, but pretty sure he was rail. I've seen spkr in a tank a lot but never blaster, mostly rails, sometimes missiles. I see breakin stuff breakin stuff a lot, but that's on foot lol. (but he also admits he is pure foot action) I've used all turrets since day 1, mostly blaster. Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever 07-28-12 ~Deal with it~
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17050	Posted - 2015.02.09 23:16:00 - [443] - Quote Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:17:00 - [444] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? Artys are what you're looking for. A blaster is not. Still going for Shotty turret, and current blaster design as medium turrets does sound like a great idea, which is why I asked for it a long time ago. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17062	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:38:00 - [445] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? Artys are what you're looking for. A blaster is not. Still going for Shotty turret, and current blaster design as medium turrets does sound like a great idea, which is why I asked for it a long time ago. A Blaster COULD be a turret I would use. Shotgun could work if it is implemented correctly. Keep those auto shotguns away from its design and you might have a winner. Thaddeus said burst fire could work as well but you'd need a proper down time between the bursts. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."
Hell Destroyer State of Purgatory General Tso's Alliance 13	Posted - 2015.02.10 02:49:00 - [446] - Quote Here is what I am seeing out there people are using rails from a far to get kills or up close these tanks live and get a few kills, blaster tanks are seen and get like 2-5 kills and get popped for being up close and not being able to hit anything, and missiles are being used as AV only and will kill almost any tank out there be it shields or armor.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders 2856	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:23:00 - [447] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? Artys are what you're looking for. A blaster is not. Still going for Shotty turret, and current blaster design as medium turrets does sound like a great idea, which is why I asked for it a long time ago. A Blaster COULD be a turret I would use. Shotgun could work if it is implemented correctly. Keep those auto shotguns away from its design and you might have a winner. Thaddeus said burst fire could work as well but you'd need a proper down time between the bursts. I don't care if it's full auto or semi auto (although burst fire shotty would be weird, I'd have to play with that), as long as it's a shotty, and it has a decent damage application and a good enough spread to apply decent damage to a enemy HAV within like 45m, I would probably like it. EDIT: You were asking for a turret made to be explosive ordinance type cannon sort of thing. That fits artys to the T as far as I've seen looking at consensus on concepts (either a direct cannon similar to that of modern day tanks, or indirect howitzer similar to that of self propelled guns). A blaster doesn't really, as it's both not long range weapons, as well as not very explosive in nature comparing to that of artys, hell even Rockets or missiles fits you better. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17065	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:44:00 - [448] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: True Adamance wrote: Devadander wrote: Been a long time since GWA man, sorry for hazy memories. I do remember you being a bada$$ though so there's that Blasters have been my thing since I started using Gallente tanks back in 1.3 or whenever it was...... loved em to bits then because I had the ability basically apply my turret to universally good ranges.... having played more game with tanks in them.....the blaster is woefully inappropriate for main tank turret. Chuck it on an MAV hull and boom you have IFV's which would be awesome....... but tanks in Dust...... simply don't act like tanks..... where's the ordinance? the explosive force of the rounds? The ranges? Artys are what you're looking for. A blaster is not. Still going for Shotty turret, and current blaster design as medium turrets does sound like a great idea, which is why I asked for it a long time ago. A Blaster COULD be a turret I would use. Shotgun could work if it is implemented correctly. Keep those auto shotguns away from its design and you might have a winner. Thaddeus said burst fire could work as well but you'd need a proper down time between the bursts. I don't care if it's full auto or semi auto (although burst fire shotty would be weird, I'd have to play with that), as long as it's a shotty, and it has a decent damage application and a good enough spread to apply decent damage to a enemy HAV within like 45m, I would probably like it. EDIT: You were asking for a turret made to be explosive ordinance type cannon sort of thing. That fits artys to the T as far as I've seen looking at consensus on concepts (either a direct cannon similar to that of modern day tanks, or indirect howitzer similar to that of self propelled guns). A blaster doesn't really, as it's both not long range weapons, as well as not very explosive in nature comparing to that of artys, hell even Rockets or missiles fits you better. It fits all turret types tbh I was talking more about the Tri-Shot being burst fire though. "This is the Usumgal boy, the exalted dragon, wreathed in the fires of heaven. He is a true symbol of God's majesty."

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 16993	Posted - 2015.02.10 03:48:00 - [449] - Quote Guys, thanks for all the advice. I am going to lock this down now, because pages keep adding and I can't keep up . The final proposal will be posted as fast as I can. Stay tuned. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: [one 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.

Moody come back

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris