DUST Search - Splash damage for large rail tank turret?

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Splash damage for large rail tank turret?

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 7	Posted - 2015.10.23 12:03:00 - [31] - Quote I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
TheD1CK Dead Man's Game 2	Posted - 2015.10.23 13:13:00 - [32] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: It's too bad HAVs can't have equippable small turrets that are specifically made to kill infantry... Oh wait... 2/10 When little turret will have an AI similar to installation you can come back with this argument. Megaman Trigger wrote: So it's vulnerable at close ranges? Is that not the point? Excel at range, vulnerable up close. I would say decent at range, defenseless up close, but that's a POV. If splash is such a problem.. Why not an effect like the Snowball Mass Driver?? Ability to destroy equipment but not damage infantry with splash dmg - To all those arguing "oh it will be good V infanrty" in short just stfu.. Infantry are the greatest threat to HAV via AV nades/weapons.. why should the HAV not be able to take them out ?? Even in 1.7 I hunted HAV as infantry.. a lot of you are just not willing to put in the effort and it is unfair to balance HAV's around players being too lazy to do anything about taking them out in battle... SOONtm
XxBlazikenxX Pure Evil. Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 3	Posted - 2015.10.23 15:07:00 - [33] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: It's too bad HAVs can't have equippable small turrets that are specifically made to kill infantry... Oh wait... 2/10 When little turret will have an AI similar to installation you can come back with this argument. Mm hmm i thought so,you refuse to use teamwork and suggested this pretending to be innocent by saying "destroy equipments". Yet you shouldn't need so much damage unless you will be specifically hunting dropsuits. Your lie is exposed. 100hp are proto equipment hp, that what is needed to destroy equipment. If equipment had 50 or 25 hp, i would have requested 50 or 25. Why not rely on your squad to clear equipment? Because it is a Dust player's goal to never rely on anyone else, so when you do decide to hop in a squad and work together you will be godlike as a team. Director of Pure Evil. Pure Evil. is mass recruiting, apply today and join a war of the Bleeding Sun vs everyone!
XxBlazikenxX Pure Evil. Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 3	Posted - 2015.10.23 15:08:00 - [34] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. I totally agree, it should basically be the equivalent of the sniper rifle for tanks. Director of Pure Evil. Pure Evil. is mass recruiting, apply today and join a war of the Bleeding Sun vs everyone!
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 877	Posted - 2015.10.23 15:37:00 - [35] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. I totally agree, it should basically be the equivalent of the sniper rifle for tanks. Wasn't the range shortened to bring Rails out of the redline/curb redline Rail sniping? Purifier. First Class.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 535	Posted - 2015.10.23 17:28:00 - [36] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. I totally agree, it should basically be the equivalent of the sniper rifle for tanks. Wasn't the range shortened to bring Rails out of the redline/curb redline Rail sniping? That was part of it, but the larger part of it was to reduce the rail turret's efficacy vs dropships. Edit: and Redline RDVs in general...Rail Tanks could effectively interdict any and all vehicles a redlined team would call in with relative ease Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
XxBlazikenxX Pure Evil. Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 3	Posted - 2015.10.23 17:29:00 - [37] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. I totally agree, it should basically be the equivalent of the sniper rifle for tanks. Wasn't the range shortened to bring Rails out of the redline/curb redline Rail sniping? That was part of it, but the larger part of it was to reduce the rail turret's efficacy vs dropships. It is not that efficient against dropships unless you have elevation because it does not turn that high. Director of Pure Evil. Pure Evil. is mass recruiting, apply today and join a war of the Bleeding Sun vs everyone!
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 535	Posted - 2015.10.23 17:32:00 - [38] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. I totally agree, it should basically be the equivalent of the sniper rifle for tanks. Wasn't the range shortened to bring Rails out of the redline/curb redline Rail sniping? That was part of it, but the larger part of it was to reduce the rail turret's efficacy vs dropships. It is not that efficient against dropships unless you have elevation because it does not turn that high. Well...that implies that the nerf was at least somewhat effective xD Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
XxBlazikenxX Pure Evil. Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 3	Posted - 2015.10.23 17:34:00 - [39] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. I totally agree, it should basically be the equivalent of the sniper rifle for tanks. Wasn't the range shortened to bring Rails out of the redline/curb redline Rail sniping? That was part of it, but the larger part of it was to reduce the rail turret's efficacy vs dropships. It is not that efficient against dropships unless you have elevation because it does not turn that high.[/quote] Well...that implies that the nerf was at least somewhat effective xD [/quote] ;p Director of Pure Evil. Pure Evil. is mass recruiting, apply today and join a war of the Bleeding Sun vs everyone!
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 4	Posted - 2015.10.23 19:07:00 - [40] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: It's too bad HAVs can't have equippable small turrets that are specifically made to kill infantry... Oh wait... 2/10 When little turret will have an AI similar to installation you can come back with this argument. Mm hmm i thought so,you refuse to use teamwork and suggested this pretending to be innocent by saying "destroy equipments". Yet you shouldn't need so much damage unless you will be specifically hunting dropsuits. Your lie is exposed. 100hp are proto equipment hp, that what is needed to destroy equipment. If equipment had 50 or 25 hp, i would have requested 50 or 25. Why not rely on your squad to clear equipment? Clear equipment is such a primary task that everything is the game should easily do it. Destroying equipments dramatically raise your chance to win a game. I have a vehicle alt and i'm using only vehicles on that character, if there is not another tank to engage, why should i not be able to destroy equipments to help me and my team? Regressed to blueberry level.

Symbioticforks Kinsho Swords Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.10.23 20:40:00 - [41] - Quote No. I'll make you a deal though. Add a window to tanks where you can be sniped out of your precious toy, and you can have all the splash damage you want. You know sniping is bad when even I refuse to do it.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 4	Posted - 2015.10.23 20:41:00 - [42] - Quote Symbioticforks wrote: No. I'll make you a deal though. Add a window to tanks where you can be sniped out of your precious toy, and you can have all the splash damage you want. 0/10 Regressed to blueberry level.
Justice Darling Horizons' Edge 74	Posted - 2015.10.23 20:58:00 - [43] - Quote Symbioticforks wrote: No. I'll make you a deal though. Add a window to tanks where you can be sniped out of your precious toy, and you can have all the splash damage you want. We just need a M82: The M82, standardized by the US Military as the M107, is a recoil-operated, semi-automatic anti-materiel rifle developed by the American Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company. It is used by many units and armies around the world. Despite its designation as an anti-materiel rifle, it is used by some armed forces as an anti-personnel sniper rifle. It is also called the Light Fifty for its .50 BMG (12.7+ù99mm NATO) chambering. The weapon is found in two variants, the original M82A1 (and A3) and the bullpup M82A2. The M82A2 is no longer manufactured, though the XM500 can be seen as its successor. take out a LAV with a sniper, put a round in the engine block that should kill it! It's like my mother always told me! Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana
Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1	Posted - 2015.10.24 18:18:00 - [44] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Symbioticforks wrote: No. I'll make you a deal though. Add a window to tanks where you can be sniped out of your precious toy, and you can have all the splash damage you want. 0/10 Ok,to sum up this thread. OP can't aim accurately and wants a buff to compensate. OP can't squad properly so he wants turrets controlled by AI. OP is acting as if he gets fused into his HAV,and refuses to do the "dirty work" of supporting his team on foot. I'd say that's pretty accurate. Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 4	Posted - 2015.10.24 18:33:00 - [45] - Quote Meee One wrote: Ok,to sum up this thread. OP can't aim accurately and wants a buff to compensate. OP can't squad properly so he wants turrets controlled by AI. OP is acting as if he gets fused into his HAV,and refuses to do the "dirty work" of supporting his team on foot. I'd say that's pretty accurate. While i would like balanced things in the game and i actually try everything before providing feedback, you just spit out your hate for vehicle gameplay, go play an FPS without them if you hate them so much. Try to figure out why there are no buff tank threads around? I'll tell you, because vehicle gameplay suck and there are no more dedicated vehicle players around. I guess that with your superior AV skill composed of auto aiming nades, auto aiming swarm and jumpy suit of choice makes you feel so skilled when you destroy a vehicle that can't even shoot you back. Regressed to blueberry level.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 447	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:49:00 - [46] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: It's too bad HAVs can't have equippable small turrets that are specifically made to kill infantry... Oh wait... 2/10 When little turret will have an AI similar to installation you can come back with this argument. Megaman Trigger wrote: So it's vulnerable at close ranges? Is that not the point? Excel at range, vulnerable up close. I would say decent at range, defenseless up close, but that's a POV. Even at range, it can't deter even the dumbest of heavies, which is a issue. Infantry should be able to avoid large turrets, sure. But to not be scared of them at all is silly.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 447	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:50:00 - [47] - Quote Meee One wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: It's too bad HAVs can't have equippable small turrets that are specifically made to kill infantry... Oh wait... 2/10 When little turret will have an AI similar to installation you can come back with this argument. Mm hmm i thought so,you refuse to use teamwork and suggested this pretending to be innocent by saying "destroy equipments". Yet you shouldn't need so much damage unless you will be specifically hunting dropsuits. Your lie is exposed. Even with teamwork, they are horrid on HAV's. Small turrets needs to go the way of Chromosome and be actually good.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 447	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:51:00 - [48] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: It's too bad HAVs can't have equippable small turrets that are specifically made to kill infantry... Oh wait... 2/10 When little turret will have an AI similar to installation you can come back with this argument. Mm hmm i thought so,you refuse to use teamwork and suggested this pretending to be innocent by saying "destroy equipments". Yet you shouldn't need so much damage unless you will be specifically hunting dropsuits. Your lie is exposed. 100hp are proto equipment hp, that what is needed to destroy equipment. If equipment had 50 or 25 hp, i would have requested 50 or 25. Why not rely on your squad to clear equipment? Relying on people to do things is a bad idea. There are limits to relying on people of course, but this is reasonable tbh.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 447	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:53:00 - [49] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I'd prefer bringing the range back up and reducing the rate of fire. The rate of fire was the only problem with the turret in the first place. I have no idea why the decided to keep that high RoF but reduce the range to the point that it became what is effectively a sawed-off shotgun loaded with slugs. The low ROF high damage high range rails are always the broken versions, while the mid range lower damage High rof rails have been the more balanced rails.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 448	Posted - 2015.10.27 22:59:00 - [50] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: Ok,to sum up this thread. OP can't aim accurately and wants a buff to compensate. OP can't squad properly so he wants turrets controlled by AI. OP is acting as if he gets fused into his HAV,and refuses to do the "dirty work" of supporting his team on foot. I'd say that's pretty accurate. While i would like balanced things in the game and i actually try everything before providing feedback, you just spit out your hate for vehicle gameplay, go play an FPS without them if you hate them so much. Try to figure out why there are no buff tank threads around? I'll tell you, because vehicle gameplay suck and there are no more dedicated vehicle players around. I guess that with your superior AV skill composed of auto aiming nades, auto aiming swarm and jumpy suit of choice makes you feel so skilled when you destroy a vehicle that can't even shoot you back. The gameplay is in such a horrid state that I couldn't stand it. Vehicles needs so much in terms of added content (actual roles), and balance that is never realized (because when the consensus of players say something is needed, the devs refuse to listen, and do the opposite). I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and will wait and see if they fix it.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.10.27 23:33:00 - [51] - Quote Symbioticforks wrote: No. I'll make you a deal though. Add a window to tanks where you can be sniped out of your precious toy, and you can have all the splash damage you want. I hope this is a suitable response to a ******* stupid ass suggestion. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2015.10.28 16:54:00 - [52] - Quote Roger Cordill wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: Ok,to sum up this thread. OP can't aim accurately and wants a buff to compensate. OP can't squad properly so he wants turrets controlled by AI. OP is acting as if he gets fused into his HAV,and refuses to do the "dirty work" of supporting his team on foot. I'd say that's pretty accurate. While i would like balanced things in the game and i actually try everything before providing feedback, you just spit out your hate for vehicle gameplay, go play an FPS without them if you hate them so much. Try to figure out why there are no buff tank threads around? I'll tell you, because vehicle gameplay suck and there are no more dedicated vehicle players around. I guess that with your superior AV skill composed of auto aiming nades, auto aiming swarm and jumpy suit of choice makes you feel so skilled when you destroy a vehicle that can't even shoot you back. The gameplay is in such a horrid state that I couldn't stand it. Vehicles needs so much in terms of added content (actual roles), and balance that is never realized (because when the consensus of players say something is needed, the devs refuse to listen, and do the opposite). I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and will wait and see if they fix it. You will wait and die, nothing will change and the latest hotfix proves that by making it worse. Vehicles have no role, no uses and are easy to take out. I will say it again, Chromosome had more for vehicles than it does now, in what other game can you actually point to a role and see it go backwards? 2 vehicle reworks and countless nerfs and it is still getting worse. Deleting vehicles would be an improvement. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
JudgeIsABadPilot Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 58	Posted - 2015.10.29 19:48:00 - [53] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: shaman oga wrote: Meee One wrote: Ok,to sum up this thread. OP can't aim accurately and wants a buff to compensate. OP can't squad properly so he wants turrets controlled by AI. OP is acting as if he gets fused into his HAV,and refuses to do the "dirty work" of supporting his team on foot. I'd say that's pretty accurate. While i would like balanced things in the game and i actually try everything before providing feedback, you just spit out your hate for vehicle gameplay, go play an FPS without them if you hate them so much. Try to figure out why there are no buff tank threads around? I'll tell you, because vehicle gameplay suck and there are no more dedicated vehicle players around. I guess that with your superior AV skill composed of auto aiming nades, auto aiming swarm and jumpy suit of choice makes you feel so skilled when you destroy a vehicle that can't even shoot you back. The gameplay is in such a horrid state that I couldn't stand it. Vehicles needs so much in terms of added content (actual roles), and balance that is never realized (because when the consensus of players say something is needed, the devs refuse to listen, and do the opposite). I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and will wait and see if they fix it. You will wait and die, nothing will change and the latest hotfix proves that by making it worse. Vehicles have no role, no uses and are easy to take out. I will say it again, Chromosome had more for vehicles than it does now, in what other game can you actually point to a role and see it go backwards? 2 vehicle reworks and countless nerfs and it is still getting worse. Deleting vehicles would be an improvement. Nevermind the role, the whole game went backwards from closed beta.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.10.29 22:11:00 - [54] - Quote JudgeIsABadPilot wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: The gameplay is in such a horrid state that I couldn't stand it. Vehicles needs so much in terms of added content (actual roles), and balance that is never realized (because when the consensus of players say something is needed, the devs refuse to listen, and do the opposite). I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and will wait and see if they fix it. You will wait and die, nothing will change and the latest hotfix proves that by making it worse. Vehicles have no role, no uses and are easy to take out. I will say it again, Chromosome had more for vehicles than it does now, in what other game can you actually point to a role and see it go backwards? 2 vehicle reworks and countless nerfs and it is still getting worse. Deleting vehicles would be an improvement. Nevermind the role, the whole game went backwards from closed beta. Can't really disagree with you there..... I mean this makes how many '1st or 2nd Generation HAV pilots' complaining about the same things in the same thread all of whom have essentially quit the game for lack of better balance for tanks. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 17	Posted - 2015.10.29 23:08:00 - [55] - Quote True Adamance wrote: JudgeIsABadPilot wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Roger Cordill wrote: The gameplay is in such a horrid state that I couldn't stand it. Vehicles needs so much in terms of added content (actual roles), and balance that is never realized (because when the consensus of players say something is needed, the devs refuse to listen, and do the opposite). I'm just going to sit on the sidelines and will wait and see if they fix it. You will wait and die, nothing will change and the latest hotfix proves that by making it worse. Vehicles have no role, no uses and are easy to take out. I will say it again, Chromosome had more for vehicles than it does now, in what other game can you actually point to a role and see it go backwards? 2 vehicle reworks and countless nerfs and it is still getting worse. Deleting vehicles would be an improvement. Nevermind the role, the whole game went backwards from closed beta. Can't really disagree with you there..... I mean this makes how many '1st or 2nd Generation HAV pilots' complaining about the same things in the same thread all of whom have essentially quit the game for lack of better balance for tanks. At what point did pilots want balanced tanks? Dropsuit Usage Rates
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.10.30 08:58:00 - [56] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: True Adamance wrote: ..... I mean this makes how many '1st or 2nd Generation HAV pilots' complaining about the same things in the same thread all of whom have essentially quit the game for lack of better balance for tanks. At what point did pilots want balanced tanks? @ OP - Vehicles are big targets; why do Rail Turrets need splash damage? Because if you've every seen a tank fires its main gun or if you understand the general design principles of tank design and its commonly mounted weapons you would understand that there is a lot of power behind the rounds being fired. In Dust this is poorly represented. Even a modern day APFSDS travelling at 5,700 ft/s creates an area of effect when it lands. More to the point the sounds of firing these supposedly apocalyptic weapons of destruction designed for tanks which can house 8'5 tall cloned super solider sound utterly ridiculous and feel utterly ridiculous with no resolution at the end of the shot. As for yours last question many of us have wanted to be balanced for a long time though I personally disagree about how to institute this balance and do not believe it fundamentally requires the tailoring and alteration of Anti Vehicle weapons until after the HAV's role and weaponry has been given specific roles and appropriate effects. The heart of the problem with vehicles lies in the vehicles not in AV and yet it is AV that is simplest to change and as such sees more change than the vehicles themselves. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4	Posted - 2015.10.30 11:48:00 - [57] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: [quote=True Adamance] @ OP - Vehicles are big targets; why do Rail Turrets need splash damage? Well, can't disagree on vehicles dimension, but shooting little target such as equipment should not be impossible. Currently it's not impossible, but is far more difficult than with any other weapon in the game, considering that rail tank role is to stay far. It's like ask to a sniper to come close, he's not supposed to come close. At least sniper (another role with bad implementation imo) have more zoom and can destroy equipment rather easily, but rail tank has not such zooming power. I would give to sniper rifle a little aoe too at this point, just to destroy equipments behind little covers. A flux aoe would please me aswell. Regressed to blueberry level.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 541	Posted - 2015.10.30 13:59:00 - [58] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: True Adamance wrote: ..... I mean this makes how many '1st or 2nd Generation HAV pilots' complaining about the same things in the same thread all of whom have essentially quit the game for lack of better balance for tanks. At what point did pilots want balanced tanks? @ OP - Vehicles are big targets; why do Rail Turrets need splash damage? I've always wanted balanced vehicles...people may dissagree on what that means, but there are still a few of us operators who want to see them balanced. I'm not the OP...but for why do rail turrets need splash damage (when vehicles are such big targets)? Suppression of infantry and to give the Rail Turret additional utility relative to the other turrets (both of which destroy vehicles and suppress infantry far better than the rail turret...granted the Blaster shouldn't be suppressing in addition to killing infantry as well as it is currently, but it is still a gap that needs addressing. The OP says for equipment clearing power...which is also one of my personal annoyances with the large railgun...as you can be pointing right at the center of a piece of equipment with the reticule red and still miss, with the impact being to the side of the equipment. and while the Railgun has a significant range advantage, range utility is balanced (traditionally) vs DPS...not general utility in other ways. ...put it under general Quality of Life changes...the radius and damage don't need to be absolutely massive, even a quarter-meter splash radius would help significantly Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC


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

You know sniping is bad when even I refuse to do it.