I don't know why but I feel....... tingly. Continue OP, fight the good fight.

*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.

*snip for length*

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.

Make it a new turret or goml.

Every time i see this suggestion....

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.

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?

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.

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.

So, thoughts?

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.



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.

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.

The above is basically the opening statement for why Dusts Tank vs Tank combat is garbage and never will amount to much.

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.

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.

@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 .

Being doom and gloom about how Dust won't ever amount to anything is fair, but you could lighten up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do people who don't tank think they know how to fix tanks?

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?

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.

HAV main guns shouldn't be primarily AI weapons anyway. If we want AI capacity we should look to either using small turrets. I've always wanted a mechanic for HAV kind of like switching to side arms that lets us take control of our Turret Mounted Small Turret.

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



You didn't actually read it, did you.



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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.