Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7
   |
Posted - 2015.08.29 00:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Turrets are nearing being balanced, but let's take another pass at it because **** you.
My gaming time lately has been absorbed by a certain world war II game that shall remain unnamed. It brought to my attention that Dust's turrets all appear similar to actual mounted direct-fire weapons, but for the most part, they don't work like their real-life counterparts.
Let's throw out some comparisons, and how they SHOULD work.
Large Blaster = Autocannon: primarily used for anti light armor and anti air, but also capable of anti infantry and anti heavy armor.
Biggest limitation is ammo- low overall capacity, either broken up into large belts with long reloads, or small mags with short reloads. Heat is an issue.
Large Missile = Rocket artillery: primarily fired at long range at fortified infantry, also effective against light armor and aircraft (if it hits) or simply annoying heavy armor.
Drawbacks are very long reloads (you have to manually throw a new rocket into each tube) and horrible accuracy, made up for by firing huge barrages at once.
Large Railgun- 2 possibilities here, both could probably be used, if not, only the first.
= Light/Medium cannon (you all know what a tank is, I don't need a video)- Primarily fired at heavy armor, while being very capable against light armor, but virtually worthless against infantry and aircraft.
Best ammo-wise (large overall capacity, constant but quick reloads), drawback is obviously that they can't move quickly enough to effectively kill infantry and shoot down aircraft.
= Heavy cannon- Primarily fired at fortified infantry, but over much shorter range than rocket artillery. Also moderately effective against light and heavy armor, while ineffective against aircraft. These cannons are almost secondary weapons (machine guns doing more work) while the tank itself shields infantry.
Downsides are low overall ammo capacity (big shells take a lot of room) and long reloads. The reason they aren't effective against heavy armor is because they're loaded with high explosive shells, rather than armor piercing.
While historically, almost all assault guns weren't in turrets (unnecessary when assaulting), American assault guns were. They also had slow tracking speed (slower than normal tanks, but faster than tank destroyers), but their shells had hella blast radius (like rocket artillery) to make up for it.
Small Blaster = Rifle-caliber Machine Gun: Fired at infantry, but capable of hurting aircraft and light armor as well, albeit not effectively. Highest RoF, large ammo capacity (both overall and for belts) with long reloads. Longer range than an assault rifle, but the shortest range compared to other mounted weapons. Heat is an issue (note the shitbag without his helmet in the video asking for a spare barrel. That's how you deal with overheating IRL)
Small Missile = Recoilless rifle: fired at light and heavy armor (can hurt heavy armor, but is unlikely to kill it alone), decent against infantry (tighter radius). Long range, short-moderate reload, low overall ammo capacity. IRL it would obviously be 1 shot before a reload, but in Dust they have 3 barrels, so 3 with a moderate reload, I would say.
Small Railgun = Heavy Machine gun (no, not the assault shotgun disguised as a minigun that sentinels carry): Fired at light armor, infantry, and aircraft. Lower RoF than RCMs, but obviously more power behind each shot. Longer range than an RCM as well, but otherwise the same as far as ammo and heat, while the spool would be there for balancing purposes.
Now who wants to poke at a somewhat-balanced system to make things more interesting?
The anti-tunnel snake taskforce has assembled
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.29 15:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:ok, i'll bite, armor tanks are op right now, so can armor tanks fit all turrets and still be competitive?
Tweaks to turrets is something we can do
(Did I just get derailed by a dev? Is a GM going to lock it because a dev derailed it?)
I'm really not a fan of armor tanks. Why? Because they turn like elephants in quicksand.
They can effectively use all turrets (although they can't use turrets with slow tracking in CQC without proficiency- shield tanks can turn to make up for it), and IMO that works.
I think what could be done to balance them is make strengths and weaknesses on tanks more pronounced: really make them vulnerable to rear damage, but even tougher in the front.
That would mean armor tanks wouldn't be able to react well to an ambush (weak spot would be easier to hit), so they would be reserved for a longer-range assault role, while shield tanks can make short-range passes more safely.
The anti-tunnel snake taskforce has assembled
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.29 20:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote:What do you guys think about giving the large missile turret the blast radius of a mass driver, but reduce it's splash damage to something small like 60-70ish damage? This would allow it to clear equipment, and be more effective vs. infantry without being OP. The direct damage wouldn't need to change.
That's what I was thinking: but also along the lines of reducing direct damage.
Considering large blasters are pretty effective against vehicles, large missiles should be the go-to anti infantry turret.
The anti-tunnel snake taskforce has assembled
|