|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
247
   |
Posted - 2015.09.28 02:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
OR, as I like to think of it, "HAV Ordnance Theorem".
TL;DR version: Large Blasters become primarily a repeating PLC, with heavy mortar and flak gun variants, while missiles get an AA-oriented lockon variant and a ballistic arc rocket artillery version.
Long version:
Large Blaster Theorem
Quite frankly, Large Blasters have always been a bit odd in my eyes, and generally been plagued by balance issues. Infantry players cry out against Large Blasters being the anti-infantry turret, as they have a hard time fighting back against HAVs. HAV pilots cry out against AV Large Blasters because they already have Rails and Missiles for AV duties, and Blasters tend to be quite limited in their AV usage.
So, how to fix? Well, it's simple. We make the base variant of the Large Blaster a gigantic repeating plasma cannon. This makes it a good area-suppression/-denial weapon against infantry (but not necessarily a direct "slayer" gun), and requires a degree of skill that is, IMO, a tad lacking in the current design. It also acts as an effective, short-ranged version of the Large Rails that is also anti-shield specialized.
Large Blaster Turret, base variant
As described, a repeating Plasma Cannon turret. In terms of mechanics, think of the lovechild between a Large Rail and a Kubo's PLC. In terms of actual damage, no it would not use that as the baseline. Don't be stupid.
Large Blaster Turret, Scattered variant
Take the shotgun. Turn it into a giant-ass vehicle turret. Congratulations, you have the Scattered Large Blaster Turret. The goal of this variant is to function as an Anti-Aircraft Artillery piece. Note that for balance purposes, it should have very high heat generation, to prevent it from being spammed at infantry, and a fairly large reticle; the goal is to blast a dropship with dozens of small "pellets" that add up to deal lots of damage.
Note that this would obviously require very careful balance- however, it would be a great way to start giving HAVs a more defined role in the current framework of DUST.
Large Blaster Turret, Compressed variant
Take the base version. Dial up the direct and splash damage, make it have a big splash radius. Give it an incredibly slow RoF, large arc, and long time-to-live on the projectile. Then, give the turret a very high elevation angle. BOOM. You now have a gigantic plasma mortar system.
Artillery is sorely lacking in DUST right now, and IMO it would be quite beneficial to have dedicated artillery vehicles as a supplement to orbital support (or replacement, if there's no pilots on standby).
Large Missile Theorem
Large Missiles are currently pretty good, IMO... but they definitely have a lot of room for some interesting variants. Let's get to it:
Large Missile Turret, Guided variant
Giant-ass Swarms. Balanced appropriately, of course. The goal here is to provide another AAA option, for variety and flexibility. An HAV with a Guided Large Missile Turret would be the equivalent of a mobile SAM system.
Large Missile Turret, Cycled variant
You know the Compressed Large Blaster I mentioned above? Yeah, same principle. High blast radius, moderate blast damage, moderate impact damage, high capacity, high arc, moderate RoF.
Basically, you just turned your missile tank into a Multiple Launch Rocket System. Or in other words, heavy rocket artillery. Pretty awesome, huh?
Indirect Fire Theorem, Expanded
So, why should HAVs get indirect fire turrets? Won't they just sit in the redline like a bunch of sissy little girls? That might happen, yes.
However, in order for these weapons to work as artillery, you really need to have spotters on the ground to tell you that something is there. There is a requirement for great skill to properly adjust for range, arc, and travel time. Moreover, there's an element of teamwork/squadplay, as for best results you have to have somebody to tell you "hey, there's reds here", and to tell you "hey, you just missed by the whole map, you suck" when you miss, and "hey, you just wiped out half their team, that was badass" when you nail it.
Anti-Aircraft Artillery Theorem, Expanded
Derpship pilots are likely to crucify me for this, but I do have some ideas about small turrets, and I want to start with HAVs for vehicle rework concepts due to their greater accessibility to regular players (it's easier to drive a tank than fly a dropship).
That said, viable AAA turrets are a good idea because it provides an interesting role for HAV pilots, and possibilities for good counterplay mechanics between ground forces and air support (specifically HAVs vs DS/ADS). More HAVs also means more targets on the ground that are likely attracting more attention than your derpships, thus diluting AV fire.
So, thoughts?
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
248
|
Posted - 2015.09.28 04:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I don't know why but I feel....... tingly. Continue OP, fight the good fight.
My main obstacle is that I have no idea what to do with Large Rails. I've got some ideas about Small turret variants, but that can be another post.
Also, I appreciate that you looked, and that you seem pleased with my ideas.
This please me. TANKS FOR THE TANK GOD, TRACKS FOR THE TRACK THRONE.
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).
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
254
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 03:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
CELESTA AUNGM wrote:*snip for length*
You misunderstand. The proposal centers around the turrets for tanks, not the installations deployed on the map. Additionally, HAVs need a more defined role. At present they don't really have a proper role/identity, and the gameplay they offer suffers because of that.
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.
Alright, I've reread it, and I still think that Large Blasters (not Smalls) need to be changed. They do not offer an interesting option for HAV pilots, IMO, as to effectively use the Large Blaster for anti-infantry, you simply need to repeatedly tap the trigger instead of just holding it down. This brings in massively superior accuracy, and reduced heat buildup.
I've done it before using an Installation to positively murder 4-5 enemies. The reason I dislike that mechanic is because it's asinine and overly gamey. It offers no interesting skill curve.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
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.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
My revised idea (I'll update the OP later) is that it can freefire, but it can also lock onto a vehicle. In order for the missiles to successfully track and hit the target, you have to maintain the lock throughout the missile's travel time.
This offers some opportunity for counterplay between a SAM HAV and a Dropship, as well as requiring greater player skill than a simple fire-and-forget option.
And again, the idea between a SAM-style Large Missile turret is to help HAVs have a definitive role, as they currently lack such.
The idea is to actually bring these mechanics into the game without requiring brand new assets, because it's not very likely that we'll actually get new assets.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
255
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 04:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
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.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
266
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 21:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
[...]
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.
I think that's where we disconnect; I don't really see the Large Blaster as having anything resembling a defined role/combat methodology. It comes off mostly being a case of "it was an anti-infantry turret, but then infantry players cried a lot, so we changed to to be less good, but then HAV pilots cried, so we tried to make it a short-range AV turret, and it's okay at that, but people still use it to try and farm infantry..."; just a viscous cycle of vocal HAV pilots screaming that HAVs should be super powerful anti-infantry murderbeastmachines, while vocal AV/infantry players scream that HAVs should be pinata kills for AV weapons, while the majority of players just go on about their day and the halfway intelligent players like you and me look at it and think "what the hell are we going to with this because it makes no bleedin' sense".
With this, the goal isn't to make the Large Blaster a long-range weapon, necessarily; I fully expect that skilled players could work with the arc/travel time to make some impressive long range shots, but the arc/travel time would actually serve to limit the Large Blaster/PLC to closer ranges. RoF would probably be higher, with capacity being a bit lower. Blast radius would be high, splash damage would be moderate.
I suppose the general concept is less "infantry-slayer" or "tank shotgun" or even "repeating PLC turret", and more "close-support turret for working with infantry in a useful and interesting fashion".
Whether or not the shotgun/flak weapon is the "primary" concept or not, I do think that a turret that is somewhat similar to the idea of a "repeating PLC" is valuable as a close-support weapon on an HAV. It also does something that Large Rails can't- it can provide effective anti-infantry support fire from an HAV to assist friendly infantry while assaulting/defending.
It's also why the shotgun variant is pitched as a variant rather than the primary gun; it's role is much more restricted (being primarily a AAA battery), while the base concept is more generally useful for infantry support.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
I hadn't considered that; it was basically a case of "lock on and maintain lock to maintain homing, and then fire as many rounds as you want/need to". Within that concept, I'd say that the balancing mechanism would be the capacity of the turret's magazine, as well as changing the impact damage of the rounds (which is easy to explain too, as you can say that you have to replace most of the explosive/kinetic payload with a seeker package).
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:@OP , so you want to bring back the old turrets that should have never been discontinued and add a few more with a few tweaks to them .
Cool , hope that it works out for you because something needs to be done .
Lets get out the rest of the racial vehicles so that vehicle use can have some flavor besides vanilla .
I don't hold out for the rest of the racial vehicles, even though I really want an Amarr LAV (because the only thing chicks dig more than LAVs is gold-plated swagmobile LAVs, being driven by equally gold-plated swag-filled dudes).
It's a lot of the reason for the general structure/concept of this proposal; it basically ditches any idea of new art assets, and works with the existing ones.
Roger Cordill wrote:True Adamance wrote:The above is basically the opening statement for why Dusts Tank vs Tank combat is garbage and never will amount to much. Being doom and gloom about how Dust won't ever amount to anything is fair, but you could lighten up.
TBH I'm inclined to agree with True that DUST's vehicular elements are pretty poor. Then again, I have been playing a bit of ARMA 3 lately, and I love how the aircraft and armor is implemented in that game.
It's also the case that long-range combat in ARMA 3 is generally the "standard"- but due to the mechanics, it's not automatically a case of "who sees who first" (though the AI vacillates between functional idiocy and wallhack aimbot godhood), but then again, ARMA 3 is played on one of two maps, one of which being 20 square km, the other of which is 270 square km.
I was thinking on how I can, with a little difficulty, push a helicopter to speeds of almost 300 km/h. In BF4, "optimal" turn speed in a jet is stated as being, IIRC, some 320-ish km/h, and aircraft that are intended to be supersonic attack craft barely break 400 km/h.
In ARMA 3's future!A10 I was able to get nearly 700 km/h out of it, and was generally attacking ground targets from distances of 1000+ meters (or much closer, depending on weapon/accuracy required).
And that's on an engine that is functionally a decade or more old, that's somewhat poorly optimized (30 FPS is "good" for ARMA, 60+ FPS is almost unheard of).
True being a bit doom and gloom is understandable when DUST is so hemmed in by limitations (PS3 hardware, lack of funding, lack of asset creation, lack of a new platform, etc etc).
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
268
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 17:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
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?
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
268
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 21:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Well, IMO an ideal HAV design would include 3 small turrets, and one large; the large and one small are operated by the driver/commander, (the driver's small would be a coaxial mount with the main gun), whilst the other two are operated by a secondary gunner, one on the turret roof, and one in the bow.
Although why bow guns are a thing in the first place confuses me; in a setting like, say, 40K bow guns make sense given the role and usage of the tanks that usually have them... but in EVE/DUST bow guns don't make any sense.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
273
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 02:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote: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, just to be doubly clear for my own sanity's sake (and not intending any insult toward you), let me just throw this out there:
-primary variant is a "cannon" firing shots with similar arc/travel speed to the current infantry PLC
-variant #1 is the flak gun
-variant #2 has a much harsher arc, but also a tweaked travel speed to allow it to function as a psuedo-heavy-mortar system
PLCs as a current weapon are actually pretty good close support weapons, IMO. Additionally, if I'm honest, I see no reason why the "flak" variant wouldn't be a useful GP-use piece. In terms of how the variants would be distributed, I'd say they should be available across all tiers, STD/ADV/PRO. Maybe even an officer variant (named after me or True or Thad? or maybe even yourself? :D)
So yes, I do understand that a shotgun/flak style blaster turret would be a pretty good GP turret for HAVs. I just personally think that the "better" GP option should be a repeating PLC, as it were.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
If you wanted to, yes. Here's a simple writeup of how the firing process would work. Keep in mind that not only DSs, but also LAVs, HAVs, and Installations can be locked on to.
1. Depress L1 to Lock
2. Achieve Lock
3. Depress R1 as many times as desired, up to emptying the magazine
4. Damage/Drive off/Destroy target
So you can empty the mag, but you don't have to- Since locking and firing are separate functions, I envision it allowing pilots to decide exactly how many shots to fire.
Also, due to its ease of use compared to the Blaster/flak option, I'd probably limit lock range to 75-100 meters, maybe 125ish. The range the missiles can actually reach would be longer... but they must lose guidance if you lose the lock.
So if a dropship managed to fly out of lock range, then the missiles would lose their lockon, and just fly into the distance (unless they were in a tailchase on the dropship, in which case they might hit, but that's stupid flying if you do that).
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
You are right... but I already see myself as having increasingly minimal participation/interaction with DUST, as Angels Fall First just released on Early Access and it's far more finished than DUST is right now.
OTOH I've also been waiting on AFF specifically for something around 4-5 years, so YMMV.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
Fair enough- most of what I like about it is the aircraft and the large sandbox area it takes place in (Altis is huge!). OTOH, I have little interest in the PvP modes of Arma 3 and am much more interested in the coop Invade&Annex mode.
Also, aren't most FPS's in general a case of "who sees first wins", anyways? Assuming two opponents of equal skill, whichever one shoots first is likely to be the winner, and whoever shoots first must generally see first.
OTOH I also have very different ideas abotu what constitutes "skill" in a shooter (I generally regard shotguns in most titles as being one of the more skill-intensive weapons), so again, YMMV.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
274
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 04:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
It's not that I don't see a shotgun-blaster-turret as a good option. I just happen to like a PLC-repeater better, as I think it fits better with the general concept of "TANK".
I do agree, however, that a shotgun-flak-blaster would be a good GP turret; I suppose I can just think of it as being akin to the beehive/canister rounds used in some modern (and Cold War era) tanks.
Mechanically that would probably be close-ish to how it works too.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
That's a fair criticism, and you did bring up a good point with regards to playstyle differences between variants. The playstyle contention is also something I hadn't even considered before.
I'd say you've convinced me to have the shotgun/"scattered" variant as the base.
Roger Cordill wrote: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....
Eh, I do think the "shotgun" variant should have reasonable enough range and especially elevation that allows an HAV to act as an anti-dropship unit. That said, it would also have a short enough range that the dropship can actually fight back (in the case of an ADS in particular).
WRT Small Blaster mechanics, I did consider making a post about that, wherein I'd describe a "Breach" variant of the current Small Blaster, but I actually will admit that Large and Small Turrets should generally not share variant types. At least, not all variant types; the different turret sizes should, IMO, each have a variant that's somewhat unique to that size/weapon.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
TBH I don't see myself playing DUST very much in the near/mid term, as AFF did just release, and I've got a good-size list of feedback to provide from playing just an hour and a half of the SP mode. Add on to the fact that AFF is more complete in its early access release than DUST is right now... and my enthusiasm for DUST wanes considerably.
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
I suppose that we disagree on this, because I would argue that "outsmarting" your opponent means that you are, in fact, more skilled and/or coordinated than them.
A pretty good example, IMO, is the Halo 5 Gamescom Invitational (which was actually quite entertaining IMO); the team that won the final bout was able to do so by coordinating much better than their opposition. In that case, the "skill" was their ability to coordinate.
I've not played CS:GO or Destiny, but having had a few times in DUST and BF4- as those are the 'competitive' shooters I've played the most AFAIR- the times where someone shot first and I won tended to be a case of me being the more skilled player (as an example, I've had opponents who stood still or even crouched in a corner, or sprayed and missed me from about 5 feet away).
So for example in H5, which seems to be a more fluid game based on the gameplay I've watched (particularly aforementioned Gamescom Invitational), there's a definite possibility to fight back against someone who has the first mover advantage, but to turn the fight around you need to outplay/outskill your opponent. For equally skilled opponents, first mover advantage is, IMO, decisive to the point of generally winning a fight.
Part two to come.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
Victor Moody Stahl
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
274
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 04:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote: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.
I generally consider shotguns to be skill intensive due to the fact that they do in fact require fairly good aim (contrary to the opinion of the average gamer), and more importantly require very good positioning in order to get the 1HK. Usually. Some games are better than others in that regard.
Still, I am coming around to the idea of a big canister shot shotgun flak cannon blaster... that was a mouthful.
Press Attache wrote:Love your tone, keep hanging out on the rooftop in your spawn getting farmed.
I don't recall that ever happening to me, and I'll be the first to admit that I am an at best average player.
Press Attache wrote:At this point, if I haven't tested someone's mettle in a tank, their opinion on what tanks need is irrelevant.
There's more to having good ideas than "you must be this tall to ride".
Press Attache wrote:Non tankers shouldn't comment on things they know nothing about.
Non-AV'ers shouldn't comment on things they know nothing about. Oooh, see what I did there?
That should hopefully demonstrate to you why you're wrong about that. Do note that I do not subscribe to either idea.
Press Attache wrote: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.
I think the best I did in a militia blaster tank was 15/16-0, and that was against quite noobish opposition (though I did get some delicious hatemail for it), and was also waaay back when there was only the Amarr Commando, so something like what, Uprising 1.4/1.5 ish?
So as it happens, I am not a particularly special tanker, or even a very good one. Probably not even an "average" tanker.
But I do think I've got some good ideas, especially since I do NOT want for tanks to be helpless against infantry. I do in fact want tanks to be powerful, useful, viable assets that are impressive and awesome.
The problem is that they really aren't that right now. They're either MLT shitfits in the hands of noobs that might as well be WP pinatas, or they're incredibly annoying nigh-indestructible bricks that provide no benefit to an AV player that attempts to attack them. At which point you can probably just find something else to do in-match that allows you to simply avoid dealing with the tank.
This is bad counterplay and bad design; tanks are either pinatas waiting to be popped for delicious WPs or they're impervious bricks that are better off ignored.
Please, please, please understand that I absolutely do not want infantry to be walking all over tanks. What I want is for tanks to have a well-defined role, and part of the problem I see is that the mechanics of the current Large Blaster turret are subpar at best.
In an ideal world Large Turrets would be AV/anti-material, while Smalls would be mostly anti-infantry, and a Small would be mounted coaxially for the pilot to control. However, this is obviously not possible, so secondary anti-infantry functions for Large Turrets is a desirable trait.
Also, you should probably try to attack the actual substance of my proposal/argument, rather than my character or qualifications. It tends to work better and lead to a more refined idea.
Buff Logis | Nerf Scouts
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|