DUST Search - An Idea to make Small Blasters Viable on a DropShip.

Tread Loudly 2 wrote:

So for a while I've goofed around with the Small Blasters on ADS's even going as far as making triple gunner ion cannon incubus' but they never were able to even compare to the missiles or rails no matter how hard we'd try, and that can be summed up by a few reasons.

1st. Suppression, very few suits would actually be scared of these as they do minor damage, and are very hard to control/aim whilst flying or gunning out of the side of an ADS/DS

2nd TTK, the Small blasters even at proto level kill relatively slowly due to the inability to aim properly, even while having 3 gunners shooting at the same time it's uncertain when you'd even get a hit due to the dispersion

These being the main two issues, with both having the same easy fix. This fix being, adding a moderately large blast radius with a small amount of damage for those within that blast radius.

So basically an explosive round per-say

Proposed Blast Radius: 1-1.5 meters
Proposed Splash Damage: 5 Damage per shot at basic 5.5 at ADV and 6.0 at PRO

This is just a suggestion to improve combat for Pilots whilst not making them ridiculously OP

Please post all constructive criticism below as well as tweaks, etc

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 107	Posted - 2015.03.24 03:21:00 - [1] - Quote So for a while I've goofed around with the Small Blasters on ADS's even going as far as making triple gunner ion cannon incubus' but they never were able to even compare to the missiles or rails no matter how hard we'd try, and that can be summed up by a few reasons. 1st. Suppression, very few suits would actually be scared of these as they do minor damage, and are very hard to control/aim whilst flying or gunning out of the side of an ADS/DS 2nd TTK, the Small blasters even at proto level kill relatively slowly due to the inability to aim properly, even while having 3 gunners shooting at the same time it's uncertain when you'd even get a hit due to the dispersion These being the main two issues, with both having the same easy fix. This fix being, adding a moderately large blast radius with a small amount of damage for those within that blast radius. So basically an explosive round per-say Proposed Blast Radius: 1-1.5 meters Proposed Splash Damage: 5 Damage per shot at basic 5.5 at ADV and 6.0 at PRO This is just a suggestion to improve combat for Pilots whilst not making them ridiculously OP Please post all constructive criticism below as well as tweaks, etc I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
Doshneil Antaro Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 328	Posted - 2015.03.24 05:54:00 - [2] - Quote The problem that arises from this is that tanks would be able to mount these and we would have more QQ about tanks kill infantry too gud. I'm not saying that this wouldn't help dropships, just that they would be too powerful on a tank. Sage /thread
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 219	Posted - 2015.03.24 11:53:00 - [3] - Quote Well... Small blasters ARE supposed to be infantry terror... Anything to make it better :( Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
Mad Syringe ReDust Inc. 609	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:04:00 - [4] - Quote Before any changes to the blaster are made, I'd like to see what the dispersion reduction over time (like the hmg) will do to it. This was supposed to be implemented with Echo, but obviously failed. So wait and see if that changes anything when implemented.
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 208	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:15:00 - [5] - Quote I agree. Although 1.5 m could be too much for a small blaster. They need 1. Radius of .5m 2. Increased damage 3. Increased range 4. Decreased dispersion 5. Improved accuracy. 48th Special Operations Force. Twitter- @48SOF
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 220	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:19:00 - [6] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: I agree. Although 1.5 m could be too much for a small blaster. They need 1. Radius of .5m 2. Increased damage 3. Increased range 4. Decreased dispersion 5. Improved accuracy. This. AND hit detection while moving,,, it's terribly bad while moving... But good for sitting still. Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5486	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:59:00 - [7] - Quote Doshneil Antaro wrote: The problem that arises from this is that tanks would be able to mount these and we would have more QQ about tanks kill infantry too gud. I'm not saying that this wouldn't help dropships, just that they would be too powerful on a tank. Two people wrapped in an expensive armor shell that cannot do anything other than attack should be able to do this with great success. If infantry have complaints, they can go screw themselves. Usually banned for being too awesome.
The dark cloud Negative-Feedback. 4185	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:31:00 - [8] - Quote First off they need to unscrew the dispersion they have now cause that certainly was not intended. And yes to the other listed points. I make the scrubs scream and the vets cry.
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 110	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:10:00 - [9] - Quote Doshneil Antaro wrote: The problem that arises from this is that tanks would be able to mount these and we would have more QQ about tanks kill infantry too gud. I'm not saying that this wouldn't help dropships, just that they would be too powerful on a tank. Not necessarily, because a tank wouldn't have proper leverage to use them correctly. However it would make it easier to stop camping in a corridor or small building via a tank, but without the leverage a dropship is able to give I don't see it being ridiculously OP Shamarskii Simon wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: I agree. Although 1.5 m could be too much for a small blaster. They need 1. Radius of .5m 2. Increased damage 3. Increased range 4. Decreased dispersion 5. Improved accuracy. This. AND hit detection while moving,,, it's terribly bad while moving... But good for sitting still. Sitting still in today's War Zone with a Dropship means certain death. Whether be from other vehicles or AV, just from the sheer amount of AV/other vehicles The dark cloud wrote: First off they need to unscrew the dispersion they have now cause that certainly was not intended. And yes to the other listed points. I'd like to think that the dispersion changes would greatly help Land vehicles, however it wouldn't be nearly as beneficial for Drop Ships because of the stability of those turrets.... I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 110	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:12:00 - [10] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: I agree. Although 1.5 m could be too much for a small blaster. They need 1. Radius of .5m 2. Increased damage 3. Increased range 4. Decreased dispersion 5. Improved accuracy. 1.5 may be a tad much now that I think about it. I'd say .5-1.0 m and keep the blast damage low-medium per shot, so they don't get made completely OP I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.

Boss SobanRe Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 20	Posted - 2015.03.24 17:55:00 - [11] - Quote 1. Remove the dispersion (pre bravo) and 2. increase the range by 60 m Give us the tiny dot sight back Pilots might have trouble shooting from the main turret with a tiny dot maybe it's still intended against shield based av work So.. A good compromise: . Use the tactical sniper rifle's circle sight and keep the dispersion within that tiny circle Or how about the gal incubus skill that decreases dispersion like the gal assault passive does already Or A new sharpshooter skill in the turret skill tree that decreases small blaster dispersion Comparable to the gal assault rifle In truth, I'm not a good shot....I'm just really, really lucky! -Boss Sobanre
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 110	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:04:00 - [12] - Quote Boss SobanRe wrote: 1. Remove the dispersion (pre bravo) and 2. increase the range by 60 m Give us the tiny dot sight back Pilots might have trouble shooting from the main turret with a tiny dot maybe it's still intended against shield based av work So.. A good compromise: . Use the tactical sniper rifle's circle sight and keep the dispersion within that tiny circle Or how about the gal incubus skill that decreases dispersion like the gal assault passive does already Or A new sharpshooter skill in the turret skill tree that decreases small blaster dispersion Comparable to the gal assault rifle Small turrets are in general intended and designed to be used vs Infantry The side mounted turrets on a dropship can be just as difficult to aim at times as the front turret on an ADS is. I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
Finn Colman Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 159	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:41:00 - [13] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: I agree. Although 1.5 m could be too much for a small blaster. They need 1. Radius of .5m 2. Increased damage 3. Increased range 4. Decreased dispersion 5. Improved accuracy. Well, last I checked they have a 0.5 m splash radius. Jack-of-most-trades, master of one.
Cypher Nil Fireteam Tempest 113	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:43:00 - [14] - Quote I like the idea but in order to stop this leaking over to tanks we need separate turret mounts for dropships and tanks. we can make edits to each separate weapon group based on need +21 Million SP Merc Caldari Loyalist Of course we won, now when do I get paid?
Finn Colman Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 160	Posted - 2015.03.24 18:54:00 - [15] - Quote Cypher Nil wrote: I like the idea but in order to stop this leaking over to tanks we need separate turret mounts for dropships and tanks. we can make edits to each separate weapon group based on need This is one of the primary issues, they are trying to balance one weapon for two different uses. Jack-of-most-trades, master of one.
Grimmiers 822	Posted - 2015.03.24 22:57:00 - [16] - Quote are you guys really worried about blaster being too good on tanks? The blaster does have a bit of splash already and if it's on a tank you won't have a high enough angle to exploit splash as much. A splash range increase mod would actually make sense for tanks and dropships that want to focus on infantry. The range increase could lower the damage to balance it towards anti infantry.
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2996	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:55:00 - [17] - Quote Doshneil Antaro wrote: The problem that arises from this is that tanks would be able to mount these and we would have more QQ about tanks kill infantry too gud. I'm not saying that this wouldn't help dropships, just that they would be too powerful on a tank. Two things- 1: It's a small blaster. That would mean a gunner used it, in which it's a 2+ man HAV 2: Nobody bitched about smalls back in Chromo. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 550	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:03:00 - [18] - Quote Tread Loudly 2 wrote: So for a while I've goofed around with the Small Blasters on ADS's even going as far as making triple gunner ion cannon incubus' but they never were able to even compare to the missiles or rails no matter how hard we'd try, and that can be summed up by a few reasons. 1st. Suppression, very few suits would actually be scared of these as they do minor damage, and are very hard to control/aim whilst flying or gunning out of the side of an ADS/DS 2nd TTK, the Small blasters even at proto level kill relatively slowly due to the inability to aim properly, even while having 3 gunners shooting at the same time it's uncertain when you'd even get a hit due to the dispersion These being the main two issues, with both having the same easy fix. This fix being, adding a moderately large blast radius with a small amount of damage for those within that blast radius. So basically an explosive round per-say Proposed Blast Radius: 1-1.5 meters Proposed Splash Damage: 5 Damage per shot at basic 5.5 at ADV and 6.0 at PRO This is just a suggestion to improve combat for Pilots whilst not making them ridiculously OP Please post all constructive criticism below as well as tweaks, etc I like this change, reminds me of the deathwand miniguns on the blackhawk in battlefield 2 before they patched them out. Might be overpowered and need some adjustment, but I think this might be a good step in the right direction for a turret that has always been pretty crap.
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 112	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:09:00 - [19] - Quote Also one thing that people need to think about before, immediately ruling this out because it'll be "OP" on tanks. Tanks will not be able to use these turrets to the extent of dropships because the won't have the proper leverage. A tank's job with these turrets would be to either A: Combat camping enemies in corridors or B: Provide suppression I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
Apocalyptic Destroyer Killers 4 Hire 377	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:21:00 - [20] - Quote There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it True Amarr In Disguise Pain is weakness leaving the body Proto : ADS Pilot Ak.0 : Mando, Scout, Assault

Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 223	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:25:00 - [21] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Damage is in 50% range on Tanks/ all vehicles except viper... Like I'm gonna wing it and say 55/44. Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 550	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:31:00 - [22] - Quote Tread Loudly 2 wrote: Also one thing that people need to think about before, immediately ruling this out because it'll be "OP" on tanks. Tanks will not be able to use these turrets to the extent of dropships because the won't have the proper leverage. A tank's job with these turrets would be to either A: Combat camping enemies in corridors or B: Provide suppression Im an advocate for all around balance, and while I have been bitching about dropships (less so these days) and tanks (more so these days) being overpowered to varying degrees, I have no problem at all with the small blaster turret being reworked and fixed. It is pretty damn near useless right now and anyone who cant see that needs to have their eyes checked. I don't think you're going to get much resistance to your idea (particularly because you are correct that it is a much stronger buff to dropship blaster use due to angle of attack, which is similar to the reason why small rails are better than small missiles on tanks).
Tread Loudly 2 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 113	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:44:00 - [23] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Issue with small blaster vs. HAV's is that it purely doesn't do enough damage... Back before they took out the stacking ability between pilots and their gunners I flew an incubus with 2 gunners all with Ion Cannons and it could rip through an ADS or LAV but vs any kind of HP/Rep stacked vehicle it just wouldn't register damage properly. It almost seemed like it was being considered small arms fire. I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
Finn Colman Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 160	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:40:00 - [24] - Quote Tread Loudly 2 wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Issue with small blaster vs. HAV's is that it purely doesn't do enough damage... Back before they took out the stacking ability between pilots and their gunners I flew an incubus with 2 gunners all with Ion Cannons and it could rip through an ADS or LAV but vs any kind of HP/Rep stacked vehicle it just wouldn't register damage properly. It almost seemed like it was being considered small arms fire. Small blaster vs. HAV is not supposed to be very effective, they are more intended for Anti-infantry and less intended for AV than any other turret in the game. Jack-of-most-trades, master of one.
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2809	Posted - 2015.03.25 18:40:00 - [25] - Quote LoopLet's fix their dispersion first and see how that goes. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2998	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:51:00 - [26] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Damage is in 50% range on Tanks/ all vehicles except viper... Like I'm gonna wing it and say 55/44. Which makes sense since it's a small turret. That would be like a .50 cal shooting at a tank irl. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 2998	Posted - 2015.03.25 19:55:00 - [27] - Quote Finn Colman wrote: Tread Loudly 2 wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Issue with small blaster vs. HAV's is that it purely doesn't do enough damage... Back before they took out the stacking ability between pilots and their gunners I flew an incubus with 2 gunners all with Ion Cannons and it could rip through an ADS or LAV but vs any kind of HP/Rep stacked vehicle it just wouldn't register damage properly. It almost seemed like it was being considered small arms fire. Small blaster vs. HAV is not supposed to be very effective, they are more intended for Anti-infantry and less intended for AV than any other turret in the game. Which is why people insisting that they should kill HAV's like a HAV in a ADS makes zero sense. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 224	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:32:00 - [28] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Damage is in 50% range on Tanks/ all vehicles except viper... Like I'm gonna wing it and say 55/44. Which makes sense since it's a small turret. That would be like a .50 cal shooting at a tank irl. But I think blasters should get 77/63 like rails used to have. And get the full 110/90 on infantry. So that this happens: Rail: 63/77 I, 90/110 V Missile: 119/89 I, V Blaster: 110/90 I, 77/63 V Just for some order... The damage is chaotic on vehicles IMHO This also makes the blaster a bit more attractive to fit... A rail can do both far better than the blaster... So why fit it if I have no effectiveness on vehicles... Not completely dominating, but finally supporting Entering the void and becoming wind. Message for 1v1 air to air
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3001	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:39:00 - [29] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: There's another problem you all haven't noticed. The small blasters on an incubus fire so damn fast that damage when damaging a tank does not register at all, not only that but the ammo icon can't keep up with it Damage is in 50% range on Tanks/ all vehicles except viper... Like I'm gonna wing it and say 55/44. Which makes sense since it's a small turret. That would be like a .50 cal shooting at a tank irl. But I think blasters should get 77/63 like rails used to have. And get the full 110/90 on infantry. So that this happens: Rail: 63/77 I, 90/110 V Missile: 119/89 I, V Blaster: 110/90 I, 77/63 V Just for some order... The damage is chaotic on vehicles IMHO Smalls shouldn't be doing full damage on vehicles simply because their DPS is decent enough to kill HAV's and DS's in a decent amount of time, which makes no sense. LAV's, okay, I would be fine with them getting full damage. But DS's and HAV's no. Hell, some T II LAV concepts shouldn't even take full damage. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 946	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:05:00 - [30] - Quote Grimmiers wrote: are you guys really worried about blaster being too good on tanks? The blaster does have a bit of splash already and if it's on a tank you won't have a high enough angle to exploit splash as much. A splash range increase mod would actually make sense for tanks and dropships that want to focus on infantry. The range increase could lower the damage to balance it towards anti infantry. Top turret works well enough with missiles, I think a fast firing weapon will be able to make use of it with ease. Though there is always the option of making it an 'air only' variant. Massive fitting costs, with a decrease to fitting cost in the dropship op.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page