Vote here

See results here

This poll is for blasters role.

The large blaster was nerfed many times. Now that it is finally usable again, NERF calls the pack...

We need to focus on a rail/missile/shield buff.

The hull progression is decent. Hulls are fair enough. Blasters are back, as is armor.

Bring the rest up and the blaster maddy won't dominate unless he has backup. At that point you have to push anyway.
Buff, not nerf.

The large blaster was nerfed many times. Now that it is finally usable again, NERF calls the pack...

We need to focus on a rail/missile/shield buff.

The hull progression is decent. Hulls are fair enough. Blasters are back, as is armor.

Bring the rest up and the blaster maddy won't dominate unless he has backup. At that point you have to push anyway.
Buff, not nerf.

create a poll for rails and missiles.
poll rails:
which best describes your opinion on rails
1) long range, slow firing
2) Sniper range, slow turning
3) long range, slow turning
4) sniper range, slow firing
long range: 100m
sniper range: 200m

poll missiles:
which best describes your opinion on missiles:
1)medium range, shotgun-like
2)close quarters, shotgun-like
1)medium range, combat rifle-like
2)close quarters, combat rifle-like

There is not a single turret in Dust 514 that constitutes a logical main tank gun.

The Blaster is for all intents and purposes a modern Autocanon lacking any explosive power, range, and firing as though it were a machinegun.

The Railgun lacks explosive force behinds it rounds and even so fires far to quickly.

The Missile Launcher is a .....well it's just not freaking appropriate for main battle tanks.

We are not here to discuss how logical and appropriate the turrets are. This is a sci-fi genre with laser weapons, shield technologies, interstellar travel, etc.

Though things have to be balanced for game purposes too. The turret mechanics are absolutely fine as they are. It's just the balance that still needs to be worked on.

If you want appropriate modern day tanks, go back to playing WoT or WT. Don't change New Eden just because *you* don't think the turrets are appropriate. I hope you don't play EVE, otherwise I can imagine you complaining that the turrets aren't appropriate. "These turrets, for how big they are, fire way too fast and aren't damaging enough." Or some other bull****.

We are not here to discuss how logical and appropriate the turrets are. This is a sci-fi genre with laser weapons, shield technologies, interstellar travel, etc.

Though things have to be balanced for game purposes too. The turret mechanics are absolutely fine as they are. It's just the balance that still needs to be worked on.

I find this very relevant.

On the topic:
I think the issues here are well known:
- All turrets are supposed to be equally good at AV - I think I remember this as the stated design goal of the HAV rebalance thread.
- Through a combination of mobility and DPS the blaster came out to be better at AV - it's the first iteration of the new model, stuff like that happens.
- Due to the fire mode the blaster is still best at AI. This seems like an oversight that was never accounted for.

Thus the large blaster is, in technical terms, OP as f*ck. I think this is a known issue, but it got pushed back by more awesome things to come.

I've already stated my preferred scenario: Blasters are proficient at AI, rails dominate AV fights, missiles are hybrids. Infantry fights are escalated by calling in blaster tanks. Enemy team reacts by calling in a rails. Rail acts as a predator to blaster. As blaster population decreases, so does the population of rails because rails suck against infantry. Equilibrium is achieved until end of the match.

I can't say anything on the "All turrets are equally good at AV". It is doable, but it won't help gameplay. To make it work the AI capabilities also need to be aligned. If fully implemented that means all turrets are equally useful in all situations and only taste or practice make the difference. I don't find that appealing - that's as if we tried to balance an HMG to be equally good at all ranges as a railrifle until only preference mattered. Hard counters (Blaster beats infantry, rail beats blaster) can be a good thing.

I keep saying that large blasters need to be AI aligned to be the initial escalation in order for HAVs to have a purpose. Otherwise if they were all purposed for AV with horrible AI abilities, then why call one in in the first place? But nobody listens.

I'm glad you also think blasters should be AI focused

Huge eHP and staying power to provide cover to assist infantry pushes.

if large blasters were the problem we'd see them equipped to shield HAVs (and you don't, because any that do are quickly shut down)

the issue is the hardener/rep combination relative to the Shield tank's inability to stack enough eHP

Making HAVs more ineffective at shooting infantry is something I cannot support.

Making HAVs more ineffective at shooting infantry is something I cannot support.

why call in a tank?

utility. mCRU, scanners

small turrets for AI (as intended)

Huge eHP and staying power to provide cover to assist infantry pushes.

---

theres a problem with making large blasters AI focused. if they suck vs vehicles, then you get the situation where tankers only call out the blaster tanks and then recall them whenever someone calls in an AV tanks. or worse, no one calls in tanks anymore because they cant protect themselves from other tanks.

which infantry class is completely incapable of defending itself? no one would use that class. so it makes sense that all vehicles be capable of defending against vehicles.

blaster simply needs its accuracy against smaller man-sized targets reduced by increasing dispersion. then adjust tracking as well if needed.

Blaster turrets are not OP.

The Ion Cannon is balanced against PRO AV, but only barely. If there are more than two the tank needs to get away. Two can be iffy when they work together.

The Neutron Blaster is almost balanced against ADV AV. However, it can't really kill a heavy unless he is a complete New Belle and stands still waiting for his forge to charge. In the open. In front of the tank. That is already firing at him. And has taken half his massive HP down. But isn't overheating. Overheating changes everything.

As do aggressive Logis. They can nullify either a NB or IOC.

The STD blaster and the blaster turret installation are pieces of junk. Useless, but reasonably priced. I was going to say better than nothing but that isn't really true. Nothing lets you get away or melee the operator to death.

So, quit standing up in front to the big pointy thing that is spewing rounds at you.

Or blow the turret up, that's what I do.

A little over 10K Shield eHP not enough? Shield HAV can have more than enough total eHP if they put the correct fits together.

It's that their shields do not recover/offer significant DPS buffer during combat. Also that due to module activation delay I can hammer out about 3000 damage to shield before the hardeners go up.

Stacking all extenders is not a viable fit you need to use those highs for damage/heat sinks

Weapons utilities and damage modules always should have been passive low slot modules.

That being said 2x Extenders 2x Hardeners 1x Weapon Modification Mod still amounts to 8000+ Shield eHP (about 1000 more primary tanked eHP) which is more armour than the Madrugar can field on a typical fitting.

I should clarify, I mean ehp in the context of using a blaster since a damage mod and heat sink are mandatory if you want to take on another tank

It's not blasters are op, it's armour tanks and blasters are a good combination