|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Just Bad
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
34
   |
Posted - 2012.08.25 23:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Back again with another buff blasters thread but this time for the Precursor build.
(You can find the old one here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29161&find=unread along with a short lived discussion about how blasters could be fixed)
In the new build one of the first things I did was make a spreadsheet to calculate the damage values so that I could compare and contrast paper stats with how things feel in game. Unfortunately I don't think the situation has improved much if at all for blasters - situations where you'd imagine them to be effective they come up lacking in and finding good effect out of the weapon seems to rely on your opposition making mistakes.
COMPARING ATTRIBUTES
I scooped these stats from the market soon after the patch came down and don't believe they've changed since, please correct me if I'm wrong though.
Railguns
Tracking speed: Slow (no stats available)
Time between shots: 2.8 seconds (charge up time + fire interval)
Volley damage: 1680 (splash + direct)
Splash radius: 5 meters
Damage per second: 600
Launchers
Tracking speed: Slow (no stats available)
Time between shots: 2.5 seconds
Volley damage: 2540 ((splash + direct) * missiles fired)
Splash radius: 5 meters
Damage per second: 1016
Blasters
Tracking speed: High (no stats available)
Time between shots: 0.14 seconds
Volley damage: 105
Splash radius: (no stats available, but it's negligible) (*1)
Damage per second: 750 (*2)
Notes:
*1. According to patch notes splash damage was added to blasters but either damage is so low or splash radius is so small that it's nigh on impossible to tell - or at least that has been my experience of it so far.
*2. Because there are no details available for splash damage and radius for blasters this figure may not be what it is in game. Additionally this rate of damage cannot be maintained throughout the duration that an average tank vs tank fight is expected to last. 5.5 seconds of full damage/second is all you get after that it's either greatly reduced or stopped completely while the weapon cools down.
CONTRASTING WITH EXPERIENCES
THE FIT
First of all may as well tell you the Madrugar fit that I've used in the field in an attempt to find how blaster tanks perform against their counterparts.
Neutron + 180mm + Dual AR
Efficient Armor Repair Unit x2
180mm Reinforced Type-A Plates
Voltaic Energized Plating x2
F45 Peripheral Damage Control Unit
80GJ Scattered Neutron Blaster
ST-1 Missile Launcher x2
This was my default go to fit at the moment and feels the most robust out of several different variations I've tried. Raw armour HP with my skills are 6,471hp and using the reppers to full effect total maximum armour HP amount per fight is 8,157hp. More recently I've unlocked the ability to use prototype hybrid turrets and switched the Scattered Neutron to a Sodom to yield a bit more damage and much better tracking.
THE FIGHTS
Surprisingly I've found that I've won most fights I've had against rail tanks but I've felt that it's almost always been because they've made a mistake in positioning (either getting themselves hung up on the terrain/obstacles) or missing key shots that would have concluded the fight before I wore them down. I've had one fight against a rocket tank and if it wasn't for the assistance from a squad mate who had swarms and the opposing tank positioning themselves where I could barely keep outside their turrets line of fire I feel it'd have been no contest whatsoever.
Now that may seem all fine and dandy 'yay, blasters gotta be fine, you won tank on tank fights with them wtf are you complaining about you nub?' but go back and compare and contrast what you lose for what you gain. Both railguns and launchers have tremendous range versatility - they can project damage huge distances across the map. They both have sizeable splash damage making them both effective against and intimidating to infantry and although they may not have great turret turn rates that can be negated to a large degree by rotating the hull in the same direction as the turret or by positioning themselves in a spot where the opposing tank has limited manoeuvring options.
Additionally I'd urge any rail or launcher tank driver to give them a try for a day and see what they make of them. You might not care for the weapon itself but surely you can see that it's in dire need of a buff.
THE WHINEY BIT
I don't mind if blasters have terrible range while the other large turrets can hit from huge distances. I don't mind if they're god awful against groups of infantry while the other large turrets massacre boots on the ground. I don't mind that you've to manage heat on them while the other turret systems can repeatedly fire all day long. BUT - I do mind that despite being the traditional New Eden 'get in someones face and melt it right off with ludicrous damage' weapon system they just don't perform like that in Dust.
tl;dr - CCP y u hate blasters? Fix pls.
|
Just Bad
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 02:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Thanks for the contributions.
@ Iron Wolf Saber - that was pretty much what I was advocating for in the thread I made about blasters last build. A short range fairly high rate of fire weapon with a ton of scatter. This both leaves the highest rof turret spot up for autocannons to occupy at a later point and provides the user with visual feedback that informs them that they should be using this weapon at close range. That said I wouldn't be adverse if it was changed to be more about volley damage than rate of fire although I feel that'd mean all current weapons would act overly similarly.
@ Damon Romani - I think you've pretty much nailed it. I just don't know why CCP haven't made things like this. The various weapons should all have their niche that they excel at over the others and it should be down to the player to ensure they play to their strengths to use effectively. As things are right now I feel my reward for using a blaster tank and ensuring the fight with a rail or launcher fit tank starts at near point blank range is almost certainly me dying in a flaming wreck unless the opposing driver make a handful of mistakes which just comes across as absurd to me.
Regarding large turret/small turret dynamics - I too wish they'd make large turrets a lot less effective against infantry it'd make for interesting asymmetry in a tank crews roles and possibly reinforce the idea that they're to be used for a purpose as opposed to racking up a ton of kills. Sadly I don't think many drivers would be a fan of this idea but I really think it'd go some way to improving the game. |
Just Bad
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 15:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
@ Encharrion - I'm not sure that is the way it is but I'll work with that anyway -
Blaster 750dps
Launcher 624dps
Railgun 451dps
Since launchers are going to be the top dog large turret this build we'll compare how much _direct damage only_ they do per volley and compare to how much damage a blaster could achieve on paper over the same amount of time.
1st volley at 0 seconds - 1560 launcher - n/a (calculated on a per second basis) blaster
Note: Trigger down for both players at the same time - launchers are high on volley damage so let's see if blasters catch up.
2nd volley at 2.5 seconds - 3120 launcher - 1875 blaster
Reality: The second volley has landed for the launcher tank and blasters are just getting warmed up, things ain't looking pretty.
3rd volley at 5 seconds - 4680 launcher - 3750 blaster
Reality: The gap is closing but heat looks to be a real issue for the blaster tank driver - they're half a second away from hitting heat capacity and having their damage output compromised.
4th volley at 7.5 seconds - 6240 launcher - 5625 blaster*
Reality: Blasters overheated two seconds ago. The damage gap still wouldn't have closed at this point even if they didn't have to content with heat issues.
So since we know blasters will almost certainly lose in a straight up slugfest you've to rely on poor positioning or missed shots on the opposing tank drivers part so you have the time to keep on applying your heat stressed damage to win. That seems like a terrible niche for a weapon system if you ask me. |
Just Bad
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.26 16:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
@ Khun-Al check the stats heat generation for blasters are 19/second with a capacity of 100. For most apart from the Compressed variants. Damage simply isn't high enough to coast over peoples ability to soak damage - I've never killed anything but a militia tank before being heat constrained.
EDIT: Never killed any kind of tank outside of a milita tank before being heat constrained |
Just Bad
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
@ Khun-Al - I stand corrected since my last post I've managed to kill one non-militia tank before being heat constrained with my blaster Madrugar although given the durability of other tanks of the same type I've fought I'd be inclined to put that down to my opponents tank being very poorly fit in that case.
@ Amazigh Stormrage - To be fair I believe at that point it was a scattered blaster turret that I had fit which does higher damage than those in its tier but has poor tracking. I'm using the Sodom currently which tracks much better and deals a bit more damage.
Anyway of late I've been putting through into webifier mines and how, depending on how they are implemented, they'll impact how tanks operate and specifically how blaster fit tanks will fare in this new world of tank snares.
Consider if these mines only impact vehicle velocity and ability to accelerate/decelerate that a snared blaster tank is dead in the sights of a rail/rocket tank at even slight ranges while rail/rocket tanks will still be able to rotate on the spot (to negate low turret tracking rates) and have a chance at applying damage if the starting conditions were reversed.
One way I could see webifier mines being effective in their role and not being grossly effective against one type of tank over another would be if they in addition to the above reduced both the ability of a tank to rotate on the spot and the rate at which turrets can be rotated. In short this benefits AV infantry survivability attacking a tank snared in a web and amplifies the strengths of the rail/rocket tanks at range and the blaster tanks up close.
I know most of this post hasn't been focusing on the flaws with the weapon system I'm hoping will be improved - I'd like to think that's already been done in previous posts in this thread - but rather to draw attention to how it's current flaws could potentially be magnified with the introduction of new game mechanics if they're poorly implemented. |
|
|
| |
|