DUST Search - Large Blasters Need Balancing

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Large Blasters Need Balancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.15 15:23:00 - [1] - Quote I keep saying this over and over, but nobody listens and we keep getting stuck with the same problem of having large blasters be OP, all the time. The problem lies in the fact that CCP can't make up their minds on what the turret should do. Should it be anti-infantry? Should it be anti-vehicle? Why not make it do both, with incredible efficiency! While the large railgun is stuck with its sole purpose of being AV and the large missile being its crippled child. There's a reason why proto Maddies with ion cannons stomp enemy teams. Large blasters are the best large turrets at killing infantry and vehicles alike. Plus all of the maps and the large railgun's nerfed 300m range (thanks to a certain dropship pilot who I shall not name) add to the power of the large blaster. Almost everywhere that there is infantry to be slaughtered is in CQC, something which the large railgun shouldn't be good at. But these current maps force railguns into these close range engagements. What's even more ridiculous, is that an ion cannon melts through over 4.8k worth of hardened shield while a damage modded particle cannon with a heat sink can't even get a proto Maddy down to half armor in the same amount of time. Even though that may seem like an armor vs shield issue (which it is, so come on CCP), it's also a large blaster issue. It's just good at killing everything, while the other turrets have clear drawbacks. There is only one solution: make it be either anti infantry or anti vehicle. Not both. I'm tired of blaster Maddies ruling the battlefield since Uprising 1.0. (Except for the short break when missile tanks could quickly end them. That was balanced. You get so much power by putting a large blaster on a Maddy, but a large missile Gunnlogi was the absolute hard counter.) Just imagine that the large missile turret's instagib ability was brought back. Sure, you could still call in a proto blaster Maddy, but now you also accepted the possibility of being instagibbed in return for being able to kill infantry and other vehicles. But seeing as the return of the missile turret won't be happening (it's been nerfed since closed beta and it only had a moment to shine, why?), we have to look at the large blaster. Either give vehicles a damage reduction towards it like small railguns did previously (lore wise, say that it shoots small caliber plasma rounds that are devastating to infantry but can't penetrate the shielding or armor of vehicles), which will make it anti infantry focused, or increase dispersion even more so that trying to kill infantry is a nightmare and solidifies its role as a true CQC vehicle destroyer. This would decrease its effective AV range, which would be a good thing for railguns and missiles to get a better range advantage in all of these maps that favor CQC. Edit: formatting "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game 720	Posted - 2015.06.15 16:16:00 - [2] - Quote Vote here See results here This poll is for blasters role. Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.06.15 17:00:00 - [3] - Quote The problem with large rails as u see it is Rattati thinks they should be useful only at range, when really they should be the best anti-vehucle turret in the game. Blasters can kind of do both AV and AP, but rails should be the go-to turret for AV. Blasters shouldn't be just as good at AV as rails while being better at AP than rails. That's imbalanced. Also there's the fact that armor hardeners give more ehp than shield hardeners, but that's a different discussion. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
emm kay Direct Action Resources 333	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:05:00 - [4] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Vote here See results here This poll is for blasters role. 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 a reason you never see me in battle. it's because I see you first.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 19:57:00 - [5] - Quote Agreed on all points. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 303	Posted - 2015.06.15 20:35:00 - [6] - Quote 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. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 798	Posted - 2015.06.15 20:45:00 - [7] - Quote Devadander wrote: 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. Of course its going to have calls for nerf. Its an anti infantry weapon thats just as good at AV as the more AV focused weapons. What did you think was going to happen? The only thing rails are better for is long distance fire, so basically the tank equivalent of a sniper rifle. Oh boy, so much fun. In my opinion the real problem here anyway is the madruger rep/hardener combo, any other discussion of vehicle balance is a sideshow since that hull/module combo is so rediculously overpowered.
Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.15 20:46:00 - [8] - Quote Devadander wrote: 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. I agree that it's better to bring everything else in line, but knowing CCP, the cycle of overbuffing will only continue. Instead of tweaking multiple things at once, it's better to tweak only one thing at a time. I feel that the large missile and railgun are about roughly where they need to be. Tweaking the offensive power of the large blaster should also put armor HAVs more in line without directly touching their armor modules, seeing as most blaster HAVs are armor HAVs and a majority of armor HAVs are blaster HAVs. (A blaster on a shield HAV is just bad from personal experience, the hull doesn't allow the extra angle of depression for hitting infantry close to your vehicle, and a blaster armor HAV will annihilate a blaster shield HAV due to resistances) "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game 720	Posted - 2015.06.15 21:53:00 - [9] - Quote emm kay wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: Vote here See results here This poll is for blasters role. 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 Will do after some e3 :3 Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.16 03:13:00 - [10] - Quote 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. "Crush all who complain!" `- Arkena Wyrnspire`

Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.16 13:52:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: 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****. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 1	Posted - 2015.06.16 14:44:00 - [12] - Quote Harpyja wrote: True Adamance wrote: 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****. 1. increase starting dispersion so its much more inaccurate against smaller targets but keep max dispersion the same. 2. lower turret tracking so you cant track players up close 3. smaller clips allow for more breaks in fire for infantry to move, either to escape or advance. 4. lower heat build up but increase cooldown time. shoot longer but must wait longer to cooldown. hurts multiple engagements, such as against infantry squads
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.06.16 15:00:00 - [13] - Quote Harpyja wrote: 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.
Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.16 16:31:00 - [14] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Harpyja wrote: 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 "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4	Posted - 2015.06.16 16:52:00 - [15] - Quote The OP is aallmost right, except that thanks to the whole armour v shield thing missile Madrugar was better at killing any kind of Madrugar than Gunnlogi was. Which was stupid, but hey. So fixing blaster to be AV is impossible, because you really have two options; dispersion and RoF. If you use dispersion then suddenly you have nothing more than a giant shotgun, but considering how the Madrugar can clip through its own hull that's hardly an issue. RoF won't work, because change that enough and you'll just have short-ranged rails/large ammo cap missiles. So like OP suggests, blasters ought to be AI. Then you have a problem with AV; for rails and missiles to be worthwhile, a blaster tank needs to be worth 2 AV, so that you need to escalate to a rail tank to kill it. By the same token, you need to be able to kill a rail tank with at most one guy; that way you don't have railgunners learning to shoot infantry better and being disgustingly OP. Missiles are awkward; missiles have always been awkward. Push them too far in either direction and they could end up more powerful than either (thanks to their versatility). Unfortunately we've not given them the chance and they've been garbage except that bit in 1.7 or whenever where they were the only thing that could kill a Madrugar before its shields went up. They might be best being optimised for close-in AV, where being such short range they can still kill infantry. As such, I'd suggest maybe they have quite a bit of dispersion (as opposed to the laser-accuracy they once had), but with a lot of DPS - you can shoot the infantry, but you won't have much ammo left, so why bother? In the same magazine you can kill a tank instead. SOGZ PANDA: But i also agree with lorhak cause he's an aussie and aussies are always right
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 1	Posted - 2015.06.16 17:01:00 - [16] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Harpyja wrote: 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 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.
Lupus Wolf Minmatar Republic 291	Posted - 2015.06.16 19:19:00 - [17] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Huge eHP and staying power to provide cover to assist infantry pushes. Here's the problem. Tanks DON'T have "Huge eHP and Staying power," and they certainly don't, "provide cover to assist infantry pushes." The tanks in this game aren't really "tanks". The game is too small, and having tanks that actually acted as tanks would be "OP". In order for us to have actual tanks, we need a MUCH larger game, but at the moment, that isn't possible. I wish I was here back when the maps were larger. THAT looked fun. "Dogfighting with missiles is like watching two armless kids try to catch a baseball." - Dust Fiend
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.06.16 20:57:00 - [18] - Quote Making HAVs more ineffective at shooting infantry is something I cannot support. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 682	Posted - 2015.06.16 21:40:00 - [19] - Quote 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 ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.17 01:07:00 - [20] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: 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 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. "Crush all who complain!" `- Arkena Wyrnspire`

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.17 01:10:00 - [21] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Making HAVs more ineffective at shooting infantry is something I cannot support. Not inefficient. Just a different kind of efficiency. No rapid fire blaster-esque machinegun/rapid rocket turrets. Large calibre, slow RoF, AoE rounds. "Crush all who complain!" `- Arkena Wyrnspire`
Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.17 14:27:00 - [22] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Making HAVs more ineffective at shooting infantry is something I cannot support. I forgot to add that I'd rather see large blasters changed to an AI role instead of an AV role "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.17 14:42:00 - [23] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Harpyja wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Harpyja wrote: 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 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. All those reasons you mentioned are done much better and more effectively with infantry. mCRU: a scout (or any suit, but a scout is most effective) will be able to covertly drop multiple uplinks all over the place. The mCRU is limited to where the HAV can go and attracts lots of attention. Plus a HAV is a lot more expensive. Scanners: smaller range, without any skills or vehicle bonuses towards them. Infantry scanners have longer range and have skills and dropsuit bonuses that help increase the effectiveness of scanners. Again, a HAV costs a lot more. Small turrets for AI: almost any infantry player can be more effective at killing infantry than a gunner. Infantry can also get to a lot of places where HAVs can't, and that's where most of the objectives are. Heavies/sentinels are effective at defending or attacking objectives in closed spaces. Scouts are effective at stealthily taking out enemies. HAVs are anything but stealthy. Assaults are simply slayer suits. And finally, huge EHP and staying power: yeah right. Read what a previous poster said on this. To add, shield HAVs can have a lot of EHP but they are incredibly ineffective at regaining shield. Drop its shield by even a quarter and a smart pilot will run away because their shield buffer is all they have to defend themselves, while armor HAVs have incredible armor regeneration. And all of those proto Marrugars that seem unkillable, they don't have mCRUs to gimp their fits. "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1	Posted - 2015.06.18 03:59:00 - [24] - Quote 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. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Harpyja 2	Posted - 2015.06.18 14:05:00 - [25] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: 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. You didn't even read the thread, did you? "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
Scheneighnay McBob Tribal Liberation Force Paramilitary 7	Posted - 2015.06.18 18:45:00 - [26] - Quote They should be more like real autocannons (essentially what large blasters are)- the best choice against LAVs and dropships, while being halfway decent anti-infantry and anti-tank. By that, I mean lower the RoF, reduce the heat buildup, and keep the damage per shot about the same, if not slightly higher. Rule 34.6.1: every parody will have a crossover
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 682	Posted - 2015.06.18 22:20:00 - [27] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: 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 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 ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.18 23:55:00 - [28] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: 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 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. "Crush all who complain!" `- Arkena Wyrnspire`
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 682	Posted - 2015.06.19 00:29:00 - [29] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: 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 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 ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.19 02:25:00 - [30] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: True Adamance wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: 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 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 I don't know if both are mandatory. The Damage mod perhaps but not heat. The other condition about Blasters is that they deal something like 1000DP with further 10% and 20% damage increases against shield tanks whose hardener modules do not have the duration to be used more frequently. You can usually lay in 2500 damage of the tanks raw HP before they can even react. I do see what you mean but Shield Tanks do not need more HP. "Crush all who complain!" `- Arkena Wyrnspire`

Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 682	Posted - 2015.06.19 05:07:00 - [31] - Quote Quote: I don't know if both are mandatory. The Damage mod perhaps but not heat. Have you played since they hot fixed the blaster? Tank v Tank it's needed ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1	Posted - 2015.06.19 05:44:00 - [32] - Quote Harpyja wrote: You didn't even read the thread, did you? Yes, I did. I just think you are completely off base. There is no possibility of having the blaster turret be either AI or AV. It has to cover both battle situations. Where is the magic in game button that limits my opponents to infantry? Or to tanks? We have to fight both. It takes a long time to call in another tank. You roll the dice when you drop the tank. Look at the opposing players and you might get a clue as to what will work on the map you got randomly placed in. I read your QQ-ing as 'Blasters are OP as they stand! Change them!'. I reread it again and it seems like the same thing. You want them limited to either AI or AV. Which means they will absolutely get torn to shreds by the wrong mix of opponents. So, QQ -> Blasters r OP -> Your Change -> Shredded Tanks. Seems like the wrong way to go for me cause I am a tanker. The only way your blaster tanks will work is by forcing them to run in squads. As in always carry gunners and/or run with two other tanks, which will need to be a missile tank paired with a rail gun tank. We voted with our feet on massive tank changes once before. In fact a great many have never returned since the Great Tank Gank of Sept last year. What you aren't taking into consideration is CCP. They don't appear to like balanced game play. As far as I can tell, CCP never has. How else can you explain cheap space ships jumping in to blow up expensive capital ships? Lulz was the only one I found. For clues on the obvious tendency toward inbalence in Dust514 look at Officer weapons. Regardless of whether a particular class has balanced gear those that can run Officer gear win. Why? Because CCP. I might be wrong, but nothing stated by CCP thus far has given any indication that dust should be different. Add in PRO gear with Warbarge +5% damage, stacked damage modules and level 5 everything in the weapon's skill tree and you have the essence of over powered with no intention of balance. Officer weapons are just PRO gear with a specific advantage over them. Balance isn't the name of this game. It is Dust514 and we play in New Eden. Where balance has never been the defining attribute of anything. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
Racro 01 Arifistan Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 559	Posted - 2015.06.19 06:30:00 - [33] - Quote people forget that as FAR AS VEHICLES go. blasters are short range turrets: effective range of 100m and less. lower than 80m is its max damage output. preferably engage's targets at 50m. higher than 100m it has signifigant damage loss. gains damage bonus of +10% vs shields and -10% vs armour (hence why it mauls shield tanks) heavy damageing shots. overheats quickly if not managed. short range. missiles are the inbetween turret operates well within the medium range for vehicles 100m to 275m. can work at ranges less than 100m but is mauled by the blaster due to its slower turn rate and the inverted V firing arc it has (the missiles launch from left and right sides of the turret and hit at a zero point this is around 150m to 200m for the zero point.) losses -15% damage vs shields and +15% vs armour. Was capable of hard countering the maddy but has lost that ability and now requires more buffing/tuning to make it more competitive. emptys clip of 12 quickly. VERY LONG re-load time. (fix with shorter reload delay time. slighty increase rate of fire) Railguns are the long range turret. operates well from 200m to 300m where it can track targets with it's slow turn rate and heavy damage. losses 10% damage vs shields (this really dosnt matter due to its high damage anyway.) gains +10% damage vs armour. allows it to hit extremely hard vs armour. has spool up and long re-load times and fire rate (hionetsly they don't need changing these things cant hit for 2k rounds.........double complex rail amp ftw). the issue is not the blaster it's self but how people fit their vehicles. some fits being weak and others being incredibly powerful......looking at you double hardener and repping fits. now I wont say increase fitting costs.......my favourite maddy fitting has fillied its cpu/pwr gird.....(don't judge me its a fair madrugar fiting that dosnt use any bullshit ways to stay alive.) honestly running one hardner is fine...the issue is when you start stacking 2 or 3 of them. 40% for one. yeah fair enough....put on two..... you get around 75% damage reduction (including stacking penalty here). the best way around it would be to INCREASE the stacking penalty so that if you run 2 hardners you get say 65% or 60% damage reduction. or reduce the base ARMOUR HARDNER damage reduction down to 30% or 35%. armour resistence shouldn't be as strong as shields. balanced out by armour's higher hp ceiling. another issue is how armour reps and shield boosters work. Armour Reps should be returned to an active module like they were in chromosome and pre-chromosome. Shield boosters...........honestly have been **** since chromosome. and seem to work on a on-off basis and are effected by shield threshold and other....annoying shield mechanics. as a buff to shield boosters. THEY SHOULD WORK REGARDLESS of incomeing damage given that the incomeing damage DOES NOT reduce shields to 0 or below. once a gunnlogi/python/Myron losses its shields its **. they need a GURRENTED way to keep their shields up for a bit longer. this also allows shield vehicles to pull off hit-run better. arrives at the combat zone. delivers devastating firepower. takes damage. boost's shields/ activate harnders. begins toi withdraw while re-loading and begins module cooldown. anyway....probably went off topic there. but its all good to rant for a shield buff right?? Elite Gallenten Soldier**
Baltazar Pontain Blauhelme E.B.O.L.A. 165	Posted - 2015.06.20 05:16:00 - [34] - Quote I think the large blaster is okay at the moment. With its high generation of heat you have to shoot carefully. And its range is limited, rails and rockets have a much longer distance. I see the problem more in rails. If you want to shoot infantry that run you have a hard time because you have to consider: * warm up time before shoot goes off * Traversal time of projectile So a direct hit is almost impossible (or luck) and the lack of splash damage frustrates even more. If the large blaster will be changed to be only effective against infantry I have the feeling that it will be not used anymore. Because no one want to fit a weapon that gives you no chance against one type of enemy. That is the reason why I do not fit small blasters in my HAV. With small rails or rocket launchers the gunners can support me killing a tank.
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1	Posted - 2015.06.20 23:48:00 - [35] - Quote Racro 01 Arifistan wrote: people forget that as FAR AS VEHICLES go. -- snip -- Well said. Besides, we can always use a rant about shield vehicles being glass cannons. And we can agree that the idea is horribly wrong. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1	Posted - 2015.06.20 23:59:00 - [36] - Quote Baltazar Pontain wrote: I think the large blaster is okay at the moment. With its high generation of heat you have to shoot carefully. And its range is limited, rails and rockets have a much longer distance. I see the problem more in rails. If you want to shoot infantry that run you have a hard time because you have to consider: * warm up time before shoot goes off * Traversal time of projectile So a direct hit is almost impossible (or luck) and the lack of splash damage frustrates even more. If the large blaster will be changed to be only effective against infantry I have the feeling that it will be not used anymore. Because no one want to fit a weapon that gives you no chance against one type of enemy. That is the reason why I do not fit small blasters in my HAV. With small rails or rocket launchers the gunners can support me killing a tank. IOC fires 25 rounds. 26th will overheat. Grrr. Which isn't enough to take out any healthy tank. Three semi-long bursts of 25 rounds then. The heat sink will allow two bursts for the 75 round clip. Small blasters are junk, pure and simple. Large rails work best if the Red Belles are running to or from you, in a straight line. Or you have to practice - a lot. Or pick targets that aren't moving. Which leads to, shooting snipers with railgun turrets! OMG, such fun. The ones that get all scope obsessed are the best (listening to rock music?). Even better in the old days because of headshot bonuses. Back then the headshot went to 195% effective and that clone was vaporized, sweet stuff. Now they just fly all over the place with a good hit. It's still good, not vaporized though. So, it is good to remember the basic tank ganking here: CCP doesn't want tanks to be anti-infantry. Because they used to be, very much so. Now they are meant to be tank versus vehicles. While dodging AV infantry using officer/prototype gear. Less fun. Just sayin. My favorite tank is a Lightning. Just sayin.


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.