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.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 03:33:00 - [31] - 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.
Press Attache The Office of The Attorney General 180	Posted - 2015.10.02 03:42:00 - [32] - Quote 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. Forum representative for Mr. Hybrid Vayu: The Attorney General.
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 274	Posted - 2015.10.02 04:09:00 - [33] - 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 - [34] - 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
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 438	Posted - 2015.10.02 04:31:00 - [35] - 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 - [36] - 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 - [37] - 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.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 470	Posted - 2015.10.02 07:00:00 - [38] - Quote Large Turrets are just one of the things that need to be redesigned on vehicles in order for them to function properly, be fun for all involved, and be balanced on the overall. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.


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