DUST Search - Another shot at changing turrets

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Another shot at changing turrets

» 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 - 1 post(s)
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
My Gallente Alt Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.08.29 01:41:00 - [2] - Quote ur fegt
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7	Posted - 2015.08.29 01:42:00 - [3] - Quote My Gallente Alt wrote: ur fegt what a completely uncalled for comment that I didn't just make up because I'm bored The anti-tunnel snake taskforce has assembled
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 600	Posted - 2015.08.29 05:49:00 - [4] - Quote Long reloads make a crap game. Large missiles already take five years to reload with maxed skill. If its not a buff, jog on. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 26	Posted - 2015.08.29 09:56:00 - [5] - Quote 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL RUST415 625	Posted - 2015.08.29 11:27:00 - [6] - 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 We used to have in closed beta Small blaster installations near Clone units.Anyway we could get them back.They were 4 small blasters in a rack that the Clone trooper stood behind.
Raven Tarmiskis Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 13	Posted - 2015.08.29 13:09:00 - [7] - Quote They don't work like their "real life counter parts" because this game isn't based on "real life", so there is no "They should work like this because that's how real life works it." But do I agree we need more turret variety, and tweaking of vehicles/DS (since there isn't any other aircraft currently) so that way we have medium sized vehicles and turrets to match. If you could come up with some Medium vehicles and Aircraft plus design some turrets, instead of comparing them to a game based off real life, that would go a long way of seeing your idea (some might call it a gripe) go from suggestion to possibility.
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.08.29 13:50:00 - [8] - 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 Small blasters are still not effective enough in my opinion.
Chosokabe Ite Shields Of The State 104	Posted - 2015.08.29 14:01:00 - [9] - 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 The small railgun turret would make a viable anti -armor gun with a little more kick. I did a good job shooting down dropships once I hammered them enough times. Increased range would help a little too. Small missile turrets already have the bonus against armor, being an explosive weapon. I say an increase in rate of fire is a good start, maybe the only change necessary. The idea is to give us weapons that can compete with an armor tank. The trick is not to make armor tanks obsolete in the process. Minmatar turrets(once introduced) would likely force us to ne whatever changes you make to existing turrets
Doc DDD Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 510	Posted - 2015.08.29 14:11:00 - [10] - 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 Shield Tanks are underpowered You have armor tanks trying to blow up armor tanks, and armor tanks that can miraculously get out of the red line for 30 seconds VS ONE SENSIBLE INFANTRY PLAYER. This is why you see only armor tanks in your data. Here is an idea, have Large Blaster do 75% Damage to Heavy Vehicles, then fix Shield Tanks so they don't need 4 hardeners to survive one swarmed for 15 seconds. Large Rails need more range. Othewise, the red line isn't deep enough to make using a tank worthwhile vs an organized team. Guy takes a dropship up to a tower with swarms, locks onto a tank twice, then immediately posts tanks are OP on forums when pilot drives away before his hardeners go down. More thought should be given to balancing issues brought up by people that use vehicles.

Dont-be-a-D1CK Dead Man's Game 60	Posted - 2015.08.29 14:34:00 - [11] - 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 From PC battles.. Madrugar + Rail is the most common Madrugar + Blaster probably second Madrugar + Missile close enough to Blaster use (I put it down to situation and preferance) Gunnlogi + Anything = Free WP for AV/HAV (though they do work if hiding behind a Madrugar/Redline) Armour HAV the constant repair + stacked hardeners is causing a lot of issues, and can be tough to take down, if the driver is careful, it simply will not be taken down as it can outrep any damage you can deal to it unless there is a gang of AV. -Missiles could use improvement, even stack DMG mods and it is an uphill battle taking out a good Madrugar fit -Shield Regulators are almost useless due to high fitting costs that require too much sacrifice on current fits -unsure of the 75% effectiveness Doc mentioned.. but if this increases shield defence Vs Blasters +1 -Module Stacking, remove this and you may have an instant fix -For the 10th time I'll suggest making Blasters a Matar turret and you instantly have an Armour counter -Along with giving Gal a PLC type turret which could make some interesting battles PLC turret Vs Rail/Missile These tweaks could level the playing field quite a bit, any thoughts on these are welcome Ban me once, shame on me Ban me twice, shame on you !!!
The KTM Duke 0uter.Heaven 600	Posted - 2015.08.29 14:45:00 - [12] - 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 Madrugar lack of Cpu if you try to fit a XT-201, i would say working as intended as missiles are designed for gunlogi, you can still make a really good build with vehicles skills maxed Selling voice bubbles 24/7 // H0riz0n Unlimit
Doc DDD Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 510	Posted - 2015.08.29 14:47:00 - [13] - Quote There was supposed to be tanks that received mods to missile and blaster damage, I would argue for rail damage as well, but instead it seems we are headed in the direction of nerf after nerf after nerf until everyone specs out of vehicles and eventually quit playing. You can balance a strong element of the game by making the underperforming elements that keep it in check stronger. Ie; shields, rail range and damage, missile splash damage, small missile rate of fire... etc...
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.08.29 14:50:00 - [14] - 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 Pandora, meet box. Right now armor tanks are competitive with all turrets. I would look the hard counter for armor, the missile turret.I would give it back the old burst rof to start. Now with armor hardeners on par with shield hardeners, and blasters able to instablap shield tanks, it hopefully won't be the i win button any more. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me. "I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
Sigourney Reever State Information Retrieval Evil Syndicate Alliance. 133	Posted - 2015.08.29 15:23:00 - [15] - Quote +1 for the return of small turrets. +1000 if you figure out a way to have a logi/squad leader able to have them delivered during the fight. .
The KTM Duke 0uter.Heaven 664	Posted - 2015.08.29 15:23:00 - [16] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: There was supposed to be tanks that received mods to missile and blaster damage, I would argue for rail damage as well, but instead it seems we are headed in the direction of nerf after nerf after nerf until everyone specs out of vehicles and eventually quit playing. You can balance a strong element of the game by making the underperforming elements that keep it in check stronger. Ie; shields, rail range and damage, missile splash damage, small missile rate of fire... etc... Passive damage mods on low Selling voice bubbles 24/7 // H0riz0n Unlimit
Sigourney Reever State Information Retrieval Evil Syndicate Alliance. 133	Posted - 2015.08.29 15:24:00 - [17] - Quote duped
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7	Posted - 2015.08.29 15:47:00 - [18] - 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
CommanderBolt Dead Man's Game 3	Posted - 2015.08.29 17:21:00 - [19] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: 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. I really like the idea of making their armour soft and hard spots more pronounced. This would give the added benefit to scouts and fast movers to get behind tanks while they are busy engaging others and deal that critical damage in the rear "Madness how we turned our common-ground into a battle-ground.." - Essa
Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 141	Posted - 2015.08.29 18:28:00 - [20] - 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 If you nerf armor tanks you'll watch your player base fall even further. I didn't think that was in your mandate. How about you buff shield tanks instead. Did you consider that? Specialization: Making typo's.

Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 141	Posted - 2015.08.29 18:54:00 - [21] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: There was supposed to be tanks that received mods to missile and blaster damage, I would argue for rail damage as well, but instead it seems we are headed in the direction of nerf after nerf after nerf until everyone specs out of vehicles and eventually quit playing. You can balance a strong element of the game by making the underperforming elements that keep it in check stronger. Ie; shields, rail range and damage, missile splash damage, small missile rate of fire... etc... ^^^ Specialization: Making typo's.
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 606	Posted - 2015.08.29 19:42:00 - [22] - 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 It's more towards modules than turrets. Drop armor hardeners 10%. Make shield boosters active pulse again. Maybe bring some old passive mods back, RoF, torque, etc. Drop vehicle shield reg cost a hair. Pg cpu are good for both hulls, its the fact that any turret can chew a gunni up before gunni can win due to lackluster shield performance. With one active shield hardener and dual regs, I can survive a full missile volley or a good long barrage from blaster. Un-modded of course. But due to module cost I can't fit enough teeth to get job done. If we must tinker... Give large rails 50 meters. Missiles a touch of reload and rate of fire (a tiny touch). Blasters a hair of rotation. Honestly though, turret changes won't change current meta. It's all about the maddy atm, simply because gunni can barely counter without a suicide run. Small turrets are a whole other mess. Changes to smalls for HAV sake affect the ADS, that is the one thing that keeps me from crying buff. Small blasters need love no matter what. My 0.02 isk. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Vell0cet OSG Planetary Operations 3	Posted - 2015.08.29 19:53:00 - [23] - Quote 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. Best PvE idea ever!
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:28:00 - [24] - 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
Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 141	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:39:00 - [25] - 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 splash is too low. Why so low? God forbid vehicles might actually get good at killing infantry. Jeesh that would be terrible. The game might start to feel a bit like battlefield, OH THE HORROR!!! Specialization: Making typo's.
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 633	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:42:00 - [26] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: 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 splash is too low. Why so low? God forbid vehicles might actually get good at killing infantry. Jeesh that would be terrible. The game might start to feel a bit like battlefield, OH THE HORROR!!! It's probably so low because you could fire a half dozen missiles into a building and quickly add up the damage for anyone unfortunate enough to get caught. Purifier. First Class.
Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 141	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:45:00 - [27] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: Toobar Zoobar wrote: 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 splash is too low. Why so low? God forbid vehicles might actually get good at killing infantry. Jeesh that would be terrible. The game might start to feel a bit like battlefield, OH THE HORROR!!! It's probably so low because you could fire a half dozen missiles into a building and quickly add up the damage for anyone unfortunate enough to get caught. Yeah players would actually die. That's a bad thing right? Specialization: Making typo's.
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 633	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:49:00 - [28] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: Toobar Zoobar wrote: 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 splash is too low. Why so low? God forbid vehicles might actually get good at killing infantry. Jeesh that would be terrible. The game might start to feel a bit like battlefield, OH THE HORROR!!! It's probably so low because you could fire a half dozen missiles into a building and quickly add up the damage for anyone unfortunate enough to get caught. Yeah players would actually die. That's a bad thing right? If Large Missiles are supposed to be direct damage dealers geared for tank busting, then they shouldn't also be infantry wreckers. The splash would give it use as a suppression platform, where it can also get kills through sustained bombardment or picking off weakened, fleeing targets. Purifier. First Class.
Toobar Zoobar The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 141	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:51:00 - [29] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: Toobar Zoobar wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: Toobar Zoobar wrote: 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 splash is too low. Why so low? God forbid vehicles might actually get good at killing infantry. Jeesh that would be terrible. The game might start to feel a bit like battlefield, OH THE HORROR!!! It's probably so low because you could fire a half dozen missiles into a building and quickly add up the damage for anyone unfortunate enough to get caught. Yeah players would actually die. That's a bad thing right? If Large Missiles are supposed to be direct damage dealers geared for tank busting, then they shouldn't also be infantry wreckers. The splash would give it use as a suppression platform, where it can also get kills through sustained bombardment or picking off weakened, fleeing targets. Did you play this game in the early days? Specialization: Making typo's.
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 634	Posted - 2015.08.29 20:57:00 - [30] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: Did you play this game in the early days? Since open beta. Purifier. First Class.



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