DUST Search - Large Blaster and Missile Turret Redesign

Press Attache wrote:

Victor Moody Stahl wrote:

Press Attache wrote:

So, give tanks more AV functionality while removing their AI role completely.

Seems you really didn't like fighting my shield blaster tank.

I don't recall ever running into you in-game.

Press Attache wrote:

But sure, vehicles really need more AV options because there are so many vehicles around to kill.

You didn't actually read it, did you.

Press Attache wrote:

Take away the only AI close range option because who cares if tankers actually want to be near to flags to help their team.

The Large Blaster is ass at anti-infantry unless you rigorously tapfire to exploit the quirks of the dispersion. That takes very little player skill.

The proposal for the Large Blaster changes includes:

-a variant with large splash radius and moderate splash damage (IE, you can indeed wreck some infantry)
-a shotgun/flak cannon analogue (IE, you can indeed wreck some infantry)
-a high-arc, long TTL version of the first variant (IE, you can wreck infantry from across the map while hiding behind a socket)

Seems like you missed the point, because all of the blaster turret variants (and one of the proposed missile variants) would be incredibly potent against infantry. It's just that rather than using a gamey mechanic (tapfire to get around dispersion), you'd need to develop a legitimate skillset of adjusting for arc and travel time.

Really, it comes of as you either:

1. Not reading the proposal properly/at all
2. Wanting to keep your no-skill infantry farming turret

I'm going to assume the former, because the latter is a bit harsh to think of a person, no?

Love your tone, keep hanging out on the rooftop in your spawn getting farmed.

At this point, if I haven't tested someone's mettle in a tank, their opinion on what tanks need is irrelevant.

Non tankers shouldn't comment on things they know nothing about.

I'll throw out a preemptive cool story bro for when you tell us how well you do when you drive your militia blaster tank and go 60-0.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 434	Posted - 2015.09.28 03:49:00 - [1] - Quote Blaster The idea that a PLC flinging weapon platform, one that is used moving around, yet is a more accurate platform, especially when looking at this high damage arena that is coming into Hotfix FoxFour, isn't really a good one in my opinion, as far as mainstream blaster things go anyways. The shotgun would probably work out better, due to being able to move around and still being able to hit targets well. To tie in the variants with that, scattered would just have a bit more shells in a wider spread, and maybe lower damage with a higher ROF. The Compressed would either have very few shells (I'd go with 3), or it can be this single shell concept. Would work decently as a longer ranged blaster, would be neat if it could could have some cool effects such as burns (although I doubt that will happen). Missile For missiles, I'd have the tracking passive, just to remove any possible annoyances. Rockets, I'm not sure what you're asking for. Are you asking for a slower ROF, higher damaging rocket turret compared to what missiles currently are? If so, I'm not sure if those would be actually decent vs. the current ones. Artillery It'd be nice to start seeing Miminatar vehicles and their gear come into the game. Sadly, we won't see this any time soon. AAA Turrets Seeing as a dedicated AAA large turret most likely won't happen any time soon, I'll just say this: If by the time They are actually doable that MAV's are as well (if Dust is still around), then I would suggest that they become a medium turret (assuming MAV's gets at least a medium turret). The reason why I say this is because they will most likely be more suited for the role, being on a faster, more agile platform, and medium turrets most likely are inherently faster firing, and accurate than large turrets and sticks somewhere in between the damage of small turrets and large turrets. They would be the perfect place to put them.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 434	Posted - 2015.09.28 16:39:00 - [2] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: snip long-ish post due to length I don't think you understood what I was getting at. The Large Blaster's current mechanics would be entirely replaced with a multi-shot plasma cannon analogue, and a high-damage, high-arc variant that can be used for indirect fire, as well as a giant shotgun analogue for primarily AA (but also some anti-infantry) use. For the Large Missiles, the idea is that in addition to the current turret, there's also a barrage rocket artillery weapon (for indirect fire support), and a Swarm Launcher-writ-large version to be used as a SAM site. Think of the variants for the Large Missile Turret as being similar to an MLRS and a Stinger battery, respectively. Obviously the lock-on version of the Large Missile would have to have less damage than the regular version, and it would be very difficult to balance IMO to keep it from murdergibbing derpships (since that would be bad), but I think it would be quite beneficial for that to be a thing. Keep in mind that my concepts are not "new content!!1!", but "reskinned content with new mechanics!!1!" I fully realize the asset creation limitations that exist (IE, there are not going to be new assets for a very long time, if ever), so that's why it's a case of "Large Blaster+variants", and "Large Missiles+variants". While I do agree that an eventual MAV would be a more ideal AAA platform, we don't have them, and I really think that a dedicated AAA turret for HAVs (and possibly LAVs as well) would be highly desirable, as it helps to give HAVs a role, and establishes a mutually beneficial relationship between HAVs and infantry, and even derpships (you could have "flak" HAVs provide AA cover for friendly dropships that are moving in, also artillery HAVs could provide a creeping barrage to support an infantry advance). I understood that you wanted the blaster mechanics changed. I simply disagree that what you're changing it to is a good idea. Which is what I explained. Read my comment again. So you want to for the rockets give them a arc, and higher damage potential? Not really needed if Artys are ever put in, but seeing as this is simply a variant, okay. And that is why I said just straight up give it passive tracking. Hell, make it a slower firing faster flying weapon platform. That'll be much better than giant mobile annoying swarms. Also, I'm not sure how that would be beneficial. More so annoying if anything.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 437	Posted - 2015.09.29 04:14:00 - [3] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: I understood that you wanted the blaster mechanics changed. I simply disagree that what you're changing it to is a good idea. Which is what I explained. Read my comment again. There is literally no way possible to make the Blaster less suitable as a tank turret than it currently is. Anything that features higher calibre rounds it better. As far as a more suitable rush in, destroy things as fast as possible while keep things from hitting you, and rush out mentality that blasters has pretty much everywhere, making it into a artillery piece would make it worse. Which I stated in my post.You can't just assume or try to make every turret act the same, what you get is a situation similar to rifles. We don't want that.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 437	Posted - 2015.09.29 04:28:00 - [4] - Quote I still think you're missing the point on what I meant on the blasters. Not sure why, but what I was getting at is instead of work around the PLC-type weapon as the mainstream as it would be problematic using it, or even tuning it for general viability, use the shotgun platform. I never once spoke about keeping the current blaster as a actual choice, nor do I agree with keeping it one. Then I'm not really sure of the point of it. If it has an arc, it would be much harder to aim, and also require more time to hit the target. it should have a higher alpha, more ROF, something. Can you flesh this idea out some more, it does sound kinda interesting as a infantry mass area denial tool. Would the lock on fire the entire salvo?
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.09.30 20:16:00 - [5] - Quote Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: Then I'm not really sure of the point of it. If it has an arc, it would be much harder to aim, and also require more time to hit the target. it should have a higher alpha, more ROF, something. Can you flesh this idea out some more, it does sound kinda interesting as a infantry mass area denial tool. The basic concept is to combine the arcing projectile, splash radius/damage, and damage type of the plasma cannon, with the RoF/heat generation of a Large Rail turret. The basic idea for the regular/Compressed variants is that the projectiles do have an arc- most definitely they should. The Compressed variant would have a different arc, that allows it to be used as a sort of long range mortar or howitzer. The regular would probably have an arc similar to the current PLC. Roger Cordill wrote: Would the lock on fire the entire salvo? No; Lock-on would replace the zoom function. So you would lock on, and then fire as many shots as you think you need (RoF would likely need to be limited as a balancing mechanism), and you then have to retain the lock in order to make the shots hit. This allows a bit of counterplay in that if a dropship pilot can break LoS they can then avoid the missiles. At the same time, it also requires a bit more player skill as you have to be able to track the moving dropship, as well as reposition yourself as necessary to keep the lock. That second part was in reference to the rocket system, I was confused about it. Quote: Not really higher impact damage. The idea is that it's a rocket artillery weapon. Also, it requires no new assets. That's a big part of the proposal. As for the blaster, Trying to mix the Railgun's long range with the blaster's mentality of short range, get in get out doesn't really work. This is probably why Ratatti is having so much troble trying to make rifle balance; a combat style that just works better with a certain weapon will be done better with that said weapon. The Blaster will probably end up trying to copy the Rail, and just being beat out by it. This is why I instead of trying to make that the main turret, I said, use the shotgun-style turret as the base. It'll most likely work better, as it fits the Gallente combat theme better. How would you then tell the lock on how many rockets would be in the salvo? And there would need to be a cap on that.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.09.30 20:23:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: As far as a more suitable rush in, destroy things as fast as possible while keep things from hitting you, and rush out mentality that blasters has pretty much everywhere, making it into a artillery piece would make it worse. Which I stated in my post.You can't just assume or try to make every turret act the same, what you get is a situation similar to rifles. We don't want that. The above is basically the opening statement for why Dusts Tank vs Tank combat is garbage and never will amount to much. Some of the best tank fights for me has been in close. Really, for any game that stands true, especially this game. Long range fights tends to end up being who sees who first as long range guns are often high impact as well. If there were terrain you could peek in and out, and fights wouldn't consist of best of whoever landed the first 2 shots, maybe it would be more fun. But the key word is fun, it's a matter of taste, not necessarily effectiveness, which you are claiming. That's if it's done right anyways. Being doom and gloom about how Dust won't ever amount to anything is fair, but you could lighten up.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 01:55:00 - [7] - Quote Oh, I just wrote that for nothing. You do understand that as a Artillery piece, the PLC-repeater doesn't work as a close support weapon. Great. However, the split off is that you think that a shotgun-type blaster wouldn't fit as a general purpose mainstream blaster. Simply put, that's not true. pellet count per shell, damage per pellet, shells per mag, the spread style, etc. in a way that would be a good decent turret would do it. This scattered variant you're asking for could be done by just adjusting the spread, pellet count, and damage per pellet, then adjust for balance. So yes, with a bit of balance work (that's been done by people, I believe a couple people in this thread has done it themselves), it can be done. So it'll just fire your entire mag per salvo? That'll need to be a pretty limited salvo size. Also, I'd say hold out on this thing until we can get more assets, because otherwise, issues about invisible salvos nuking people will be a thing. As for the doom and gloom, yes, I know. all of us knows. Dust won't progress much without real asses to allow it to. It sucks, but we can't do anything about it. Moping about it won't solve anything. It's unnecessary and doesn't help the topic at hand. And from what I've seen, heard, and the 7 hours that I've played of arma 3, it's pretty much a game of whoever sees who first wins, which is why I find it to be so boring.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 03:33:00 - [8] - Quote If you were trying to use the blaster as an artillery, your idea would probably work. But nobody does, which is the problem. You would be then forcing people to change the playstyle to basically use it as a short range rail for mainstream uses, not just for being an artillery. So you would then have to figure out how to balance the blaster to make it actually worth it vs. the rail, which would be akin to rifle balance. And I'm confused as to why you don't see a shotgun-type blaster is a good mainstream option. It would fit the bill for the combat style of blasters much more than the PLC-repeater. Maybe you don't see what kind of destructive power one could have. Im going to show you a very rough mock up of what one could be like: Blaster Pellet Damage: 100 Pellet count/shell: 8 shell count per mag: 12 RPM: 100 Optimal range: 65m So say you can hit in range, and this shotgun has a decent spread pattern. This thing will be doing about 1300 DPS (did the mathz in my head, might be off). However, missing won't hurt the pilot too much, as the ROF is decent, and it's in a hitscan or near hitscan speed, but not only that, but in a spread. This functionally makes it easier to hit targets while on the move, which is a very common thing for pilots to do while in a Madrugar (or just using a blaster tbh). And PLC's are used in close ranges for infantry. For vehicles, those ranges are silly close. 45-75m is usually considered close range for vehicles. The shotgun blaster would fit the combat style of a general purpose blaster in that range, whereas the PLC-repeater would be more specialized. Additionally, making the shotgun a variant a variant, and then making it a sort of blaster of old, being more focused on solely downing DS's and infantry is probably not a good idea. Especially for a large turret. That did make me wonder how that would operate as a small blaster.... ohhhhhh, okay, now I see. I like that Idea. I wonder if Ratatti can make that Missile turret. Many people is losing interest in actually playing Dust, at least every single day. I can't remember the last time I played Dust consistently. Doom and gloom is still not needed though. Well, no. There's really two types of FPS's: The ones that will in fact be who sees first wins, and the ones that has it to where even if you don't see first, if you can outsmart the enemy, you can often times, and consistently come out of fights alive. CS:GO for example, is the latter. Destiny (if the lag isn't the cause) is often times like that. Fluid games tend to be. And shotguns can be skill intensive weapons, unless they are on larger platforms, which is partly why I want the blaster's mainstream to be a shotgun (neat unique turret that would be accessible to newb pilots). With a shotgun you're often up close to deal with the terrible shot pattern devs gives to shotguns to deal with it. A larger platform that will neglect that feels great in this case, as not only do you not have to deal with the danger close of people, but it's easier to hit people on the move, Which makes the platform great for strafing things and bursting them down.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 04:31:00 - [9] - Quote The concept of the Blaster was never really aimed at a traditional tank-style usage, which is why you probably didn't get what I was getting at, which is fair. This is why I want something along the lines of it as a compressed variant. It'll be useful for laying siege to things from lots of cover, or setting up ambushes certainly. As far as the idea of a variant or otherwise aimed at going after DS's and infantry (especially infantry), the problem there is that it would bring up the same problems that currently exist for the blaster: Doesn't do much against actual large things it's supposed to fight, farms infantry. But it'll be even worse, as DS's will be getting easily downed by this thing, conceptually anyways. That'd just lead to a lot of problems, and I'm not sure if that's worth it. When I was speaking on outsmarting, I was talking about 1 on 1 engagements mostly. Even then, coordination and teamwork on high end levels takes lots of training, so it'll still apply. And I feel that training paying off in an engagement vs. someone who was less prepared is better than chance taking over.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 04:40:00 - [10] - Quote The positioning part especially, I would agree. Also, it wouldn't be really a flak cannon, at least the regular one. The scattered one, if it turns out to be a decent venture, would though. Or the small. Or they can do what a lot of people have asked and put in a actual flak cannon, as in a heavy weapon that shoots projectiles that when comes into proxy of a DS, explodes :D

Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 05:10:00 - [11] - Quote Press Attache wrote: Victor Moody Stahl wrote: Press Attache wrote: So, give tanks more AV functionality while removing their AI role completely. Seems you really didn't like fighting my shield blaster tank. I don't recall ever running into you in-game. Press Attache wrote: But sure, vehicles really need more AV options because there are so many vehicles around to kill. You didn't actually read it, did you. Press Attache wrote: Take away the only AI close range option because who cares if tankers actually want to be near to flags to help their team. The Large Blaster is ass at anti-infantry unless you rigorously tapfire to exploit the quirks of the dispersion. That takes very little player skill. The proposal for the Large Blaster changes includes: -a variant with large splash radius and moderate splash damage (IE, you can indeed wreck some infantry) -a shotgun/flak cannon analogue (IE, you can indeed wreck some infantry) -a high-arc, long TTL version of the first variant (IE, you can wreck infantry from across the map while hiding behind a socket) Seems like you missed the point, because all of the blaster turret variants (and one of the proposed missile variants) would be incredibly potent against infantry. It's just that rather than using a gamey mechanic (tapfire to get around dispersion), you'd need to develop a legitimate skillset of adjusting for arc and travel time. Really, it comes of as you either: 1. Not reading the proposal properly/at all 2. Wanting to keep your no-skill infantry farming turret I'm going to assume the former, because the latter is a bit harsh to think of a person, no? Love your tone, keep hanging out on the rooftop in your spawn getting farmed. At this point, if I haven't tested someone's mettle in a tank, their opinion on what tanks need is irrelevant. Non tankers shouldn't comment on things they know nothing about. I'll throw out a preemptive cool story bro for when you tell us how well you do when you drive your militia blaster tank and go 60-0. Fuunny story, I've seen someone go 67/0 with a MLT blaster before. Granted, it was on a Suyra, MLT blaster.