DUST Search - [Feedback] Reworking the vehicle turrets to fit specific roles

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Feedback] Reworking the vehicle turrets to fit specific roles

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.04 23:30:00 - [1] - Quote Last build, the vehicle turrets felt like they were designed for specific roles - missiles were anti-infantry, railguns were anti-vehicle/structure, blasters were... useless. But now everything is too good at everything (blasters are still useless though), which is where part of the problem stems from. Also, dual passenger turrets being roughly equal to or even greater damage than the main turret is a problem. Below, I will highlight the problems and discuss proposed changes to bring things into a better balance. Also, a change regarding ammo is being added in with the suggestions, in order to bring some strategy to pushing into combat, and a reload that leaves one vulnerable and relying on assistance. This is purely a reload mechanic, and not a finite ammo supply. The reloads will also take cap to perform, if it's ever added into Dust, to prevent spamming reload after every single shot. The ammo and reload changes also open up the opportunity for additional skill effects. The operator, whether the driver on the main turret or a passenger controlling a small turret, would have the ability to skill into the turret and turret proficiency skills for bonus effects such as heat management, reload speed, and accuracy for the turret they are using. In the end, the turrets need to fall into roles and not be able to do everything. Missiles are the anti-infantry king, railguns are the overall single target damage beasts, blasters will handle close quarters burst damage, and thinking ahead, lasers should manage medium range sustained damage, artillery high damage long-range against ground targets, and autocannon the anti-air choice. Large Blasters: The problem: Blasters currently have the highest dps (damage per second) by far, but only before overheating has to be taken into effect. They get roughly 5 seconds of damage before they have to fight the overheating mechanic, preventing them from sustaining the consistant rate of fire that the other turrets have available to them. This allows them to be great at taking out a low health, stationary target, such as an LAV or dropship that's just sitting or hovering there, but anything bigger or more mobile can soak the damage, activate their repair, and then be invincible as the operator struggles against the overheating. The solution: Blasters need the hit detection fix more than any other turret, but an additional fix that could make them a more viable option would be better cooling. If the overheat cooled off more quickly, it'd act more as a momentary quick delay rather than going from auto-fire then dropping down to a permanent period of very short bursts. Ammo change: 100 rounds. 15 second reload. Large Missiles: The problem: Missiles have way too much direct damage. They outclass railguns by far (the absolute weakest missile being the ONLY one that doesn't out-dps the strongest railgun), and this is what makes them too well-rounded. The splash damage is also high - ranging from 220.5 to 318.5 - enough to oneshot a lot of smaller suits and twoshot a lot of advanced and prototype setups (and it fires 4 times at once). The splash damage isn't a HUGE concern, if it's supposed to act as anti-infantry, though. The solution:Tone down the direct damage. It is currently 351 to 507 per missile, and we're talking drop it to the 50-100 range. The missile's damage should be almost entirely in its splash, with direct being a very minor bonus (a direct hit should also apply splash damage).Edit: Direct damage should have a penalty vs not-infantry (50-75%). If the current suit hp levels are to stay, the splash damage could use a little weakening as well, since proto heavies won't be like mini-LAVs in terms of health anymore. Ammo change: 24 missiles (6 shots). 25 second reload. Large Railguns: The problem: Railguns have way too much splash damage and splash radius. Last build, I and others felt things were fine. I forget what the radius was, but it felt about 3m, and the damage felt weakened vs infantry and in the range of 100-200 damage or so. Currently, railgun splash radius is 5m, and 415.5 to 674.4 damage. This will essentially oneshot most advanced and even prototype non-heavy suits. The solution: Lower the splash radius and splash damage. A roughly 1-1.5m radius would be fine, and the splash damage being brought way back down to the 100-200 range. This would make it more of a precision weapon, with close hits not being fully wasted, but not lethal either. Ammo change: 5 rails. 20 second reload. Small Blasters: The problem: The small blasters are hit with the same problem the large versions have. They have vastly more dps than the other small turrets, but become much weaker due to having to fight the overheating. They also suffer from a large amount of inaccuracy likely due to the current hit detection problems. The solution: Quicker cooling on the overheating. Possibly a tighter spread. Ammo change: 200 rounds. 10 second reload.
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.04 23:30:00 - [2] - Quote Small Missiles: The problem: Small missiles are really the only go-to small turret. That right there indicates a problem. The small missiles are too good at everything. They have the second-highest direct damage dps (some variants being fairly close to blasters), and by far the highest splash damage dps. They suffer from the same problem the large missiles do in that their direct damage is way too high. It's in the 262.5 to 455 range, enough to oneshot a lot of lower to mid-range suits, and making them a very good anti-vehicle/structure choice. The solution: Lower direct damage immensely; the majority of the damage should be in the splash with a direct hit only providing a minor bonus. Also, as the current mechanics allow the small missiles to be too good at suppressing infantry threats, the rate of fire could be slowed slightly. Ammo change: 12 missiles. 20 second reload. Small Railguns: The problem: Small railguns are currently largely shadowed by small missiles' ability to fulfill the anti-vehicle/structure role. The solution: Pending re-testing after changes to small missiles. Small railgun direct damage is good, and increasing it through damage or rate of fire would cause the problem of 2 small turrets out-damaging the large turret. Ammo change: 10 rails. 15 second reload. Summary: Blasters should be the highest damage, but be very restricted by range. Reloads would be quick, as it's essentially just swapping a belt of ammo. Artillery would be the second highest damage, but be arcing shots that have long travel time. Direct damage would be heavy-hitting, with a high radius, low damage splash. Reloads would be quick, but ammo would be single fire per reload. Railguns would be long-range, quick travelling high damage. Ammo is a concern, but reloads aren't too long. Lasers should deal moderate, constant damage, restricted to a medium range. They would have no ammo concerns, and be limited only by overheating. They should have the highest overall damage over time, but no possibility for burst damage. Autocannons should be for anti-air, firing fast traveling, long range explosive rounds. Ideally, they would be a high-damage splash effect like a flak cannon, and have their rounds triggered to explode if passing within a certain proximity of aerial vehicles (like the AV grenade magnetic trigger). Direct damage should still be possible if used against ground vehicles, but should be on the lower end of damage output, and should really only act as suppression against infantry, not something that is going to wipe the floor with them. They should have a large amount of ammo, with a long reload. Missiles should be almost exclusively for infantry. They have some capabilities to take on vehicles and structures, but should be outclassed by pretty much everything else, and should be the last resort against such things. They should be what ground soldiers fear. They should have a small to moderate supply of ammo and a moderate to long reload due to the bulkiness of the ammo.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.09.05 00:19:00 - [3] - Quote I highly endorse this thread. A big problem with tanks atm is they can do everything no matter how they are fit.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.09.05 00:57:00 - [4] - Quote dunno 100 bullets for a blaster? they empty out pretty damned fast and would have no endurance on the field at all.
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.05 01:12:00 - [5] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: dunno 100 bullets for a blaster? they empty out pretty damned fast and would have no endurance on the field at all. Since we talked about it in IRC, and for anyone else who misses the part, the ammo counts are only per reload, with an infinite supply. The reload is to present a weak point on the vehicle, and to prevent just unlimited damage output on the tank's part.
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.05 06:47:00 - [6] - Quote Also brought up earlier was the idea of variants to turrets (beyond what we have now). The above examples were essentially for standard turrets, while other variants can still exist that offer altered ammo capacities and reload speeds and whatnot. For example there could be a simple standard variant that all it had was more ammo but required more CPU/PG to equip, or there could be a variant that is quicker reloading and less damaging due to lighter ammo used.
Encharrion L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 104	Posted - 2012.09.05 08:13:00 - [7] - Quote This, exactly this. I had already suggested the fixes to large turrets, and at the same time a bonus to the heavy suit where it would get a reduction in the amount of splash damage taken (which someone else later also suggested). Edit: The reloads are too frequent and too long. 5 shots with my railgun, and then I need to spend 25 seconds reloading? Really? I think it should be more like 25-30 railgun shots with a 60-90 second reload. The whole point is to require tanks to back off for a period of time, but it shouldn't be too frequent. It shouldn't prevent the tank from putting pressure on the other team, with longer time between reloads and longer reload times it allows the tank to apply pressure while forcing the tank to lay off after a short period of sustained pressure. If reloads are too frequent, it simply infringes on the balancing factor of overheating, which prevents too much damage in too short a time period.
Patches The Hyena 204	Posted - 2012.09.05 09:57:00 - [8] - Quote I like your ideas. While I think your ammo and reload numbers are all way too low I think with appropriate adjustments this could be a good addition. Though I personally think it wouldn't be a bad idea to give them much more ammo then you suggest and force a return to a resupply point to rearm. Whether it be a structure or infantry equipment.
Encharrion L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 104	Posted - 2012.09.05 10:05:00 - [9] - Quote Patches The Hyena wrote: I like your ideas. While I think your ammo and reload numbers are all way too low I think with appropriate adjustments this could be a good addition. Though I personally think it wouldn't be a bad idea to give them much more ammo then you suggest and force a return to a resupply point to rearm. Whether it be a structure or infantry equipment. I don't like forcing tanks to return to resupply points to recover their ammunition. What if all the supply depots are blown up? I would drive my tank into an isolated corner so I don't lose it, and stay inside rather than join the battle to insure some fool doesn't get in it and blow it up. I would be fine with it as long as there is an alternate solution to resupply the tank, ie. reloading is either 90 seconds OR resupplying at a depot. It couldn't use infantry placed equipment to resupply however, because then you could simply drop the equipment next to the tank and continually resupply it without retreating, which is what the change is supposed to require you to do.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.09.05 10:20:00 - [10] - Quote Something like this would be great. I don't necessarially think your numbers are good, but tanks, and vehicles in general need a little bit of re-defining

Billi Gene Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 130	Posted - 2012.09.05 12:35:00 - [11] - Quote ammo capacity should be higher imho, but not so high that its impossible to guess when the gun is going to be reloaded, similarly to infantry ammo capacity, where you can draw another mercs fire to force a reload. Reload times should be inconvenient but not so long that the tank should necessarily retreat, forcing tank pilots to make judgment calls. other then those opinions, I think you are right and that CCP probably already has this in mind, but wanted to test numbers before putting the reloads in.... vehicle square button reload like infantry.
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.05 18:22:00 - [12] - Quote Encharrion wrote: Edit: The reloads are too frequent and too long. 5 shots with my railgun, and then I need to spend 25 seconds reloading? Really? I think it should be more like 25-30 railgun shots with a 60-90 second reload. The whole point is to require tanks to back off for a period of time, but it shouldn't be too frequent. It shouldn't prevent the tank from putting pressure on the other team, with longer time between reloads and longer reload times. It's 20 for the railgun, but the numbers for the large turrets were actually chosen because they all give roughly the same length of firing time. Under current numbers, it worked out to they could all fire for something like 14-15 seconds straight each. That's largely why the numbers are what they are, but also using the current top tier weapons, it's a lot of damage output. 5 railgun shots has the ability to be just over 10,000 damage. 25-30 rails would last far too long, and never really present you with a need to back off. It'd be enough to go through like 3 or 4 well-fit tanks and some infantry before you had to reload. Also, the small turrets are still there and contributing their damage, and they have quicker reloads. It all gives more reliance on both passengers and infantry, something people have been yelling for. The tank driver is too much of a solo job currently, this would fix that if the main turret was more of an infrequent burst damage role, and passengers handled more long-term dps. And, 20-25 seconds isn't too bad if we're talking about also adding in skills and/or turret variations that can lower that. If you want to coordinate things with your passengers, you'd never have to worry about downtime. But, if you all went in on a big target, you'd need time to recover. That's kind of the reasoning behind the big reloads. If everyone empties their stock all at once, well, you better have secured the area in doing so or be able to get somewhere safe while everyone reloads. Edit: And just a note, these changes and numbers were talked about between myself and Noc, two people who run tanks a large amount of the time and will likely run tanks in the full game. So, it's not like I'm some person who hates all you tank losers and want you to suffer, these are numbers we'd be fine with restricting our rampages.
Eskel Bondfree DUST University Ivy League 76	Posted - 2012.09.05 20:20:00 - [13] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: A big problem with tanks atm is they can do everything no matter how they are fit. Exactly my thoughts. Tanks are too much of a jack of all trades currently, tank drivers should have to decide on their role before they deploy. If a tank is mopping the floor with infantry, it should be much more vulnerable against another tank that is anti vehicle fit. To the OP, very sensible feedback and great ideas, I think they are the right way to go.
Just Bad Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 34	Posted - 2012.09.05 21:35:00 - [14] - Quote +1'd Great post and a great idea to help try and enforce that tanks aren't just for driving about and shooting up all the things with the big gun all day long. I've not done the math to see what the damage potential you have per reload on each weapon system but I'd imagine you've already gave that a good amount of thought. I'm also very happy to see more people agreeing that large blasters have issues instead of insisting they're ok while they continue driving about with their missile and rail tanks. If they rolled these changes into the game next build I'd be a happy 'lil Bad again.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2867	Posted - 2012.09.06 02:52:00 - [15] - Quote Any thoughts on the other weapons?
Traynor Youngs Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 287	Posted - 2012.09.06 02:57:00 - [16] - Quote Good ideas, +1
Fivetimes Infinity Immobile Infantry 1086	Posted - 2012.09.06 04:28:00 - [17] - Quote I like all of these ideas. I like ammo, and I definitely like making the anti-armor railgun less able at flattening infantry. Definitely a good direction for turrets to be taken.
D3LTA NORMANDY Doomheim 101	Posted - 2012.09.06 22:33:00 - [18] - Quote CCP has already a plan what turrets are suited to. The discription says that blasters are against infantry, railguns against vehicles and buildings and missles are somewhere between them. Right now it depends just on the distance. Blaster rule if your close due to their high dps and turning speed. Railguns are long and mid range weapons due to their speed and accuracy. Missles are the intermediate. Thats why most people fit railguns. They are just in close quarter fights the loser because they turn slowest but most enemies are unable to get there or the tank runs away if he notices near enemies. I totally agree with your changes regarding railgun and ammo. But missle turrets are okay right now as a multi role turret. The only thing that could be done is a raise of their reload time.
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.06 23:16:00 - [19] - Quote D3LTA NORMANDY wrote: But missle turrets are okay right now as a multi role turret. Missiles really aren't okay at all with how they currently function. Nothing really should be a multi role (so that counters can be established), and missiles are pretty much an every role right now. The only real trouble they have is shooting down a dropship that knows how to keep moving. Both the large and small missiles have the highest effective dps AND the highest splash dps and radius. They're kinda ridiculous right now.
General Rian Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2012.09.07 00:38:00 - [20] - Quote Skytt Syysch wrote: D3LTA NORMANDY wrote: But missle turrets are okay right now as a multi role turret. Missiles really aren't okay at all with how they currently function. Nothing really should be a multi role (so that counters can be established), and missiles are pretty much an every role right now. The only real trouble they have is shooting down a dropship that knows how to keep moving. Both the large and small missiles have the highest effective dps AND the highest splash dps and radius. They're kinda ridiculous right now. With a Large Missile Turret, hitting a moving dropship is a null-issue unless it's flying high into the air. I was killed very quickly in a well tanked Armor fit dropship even while moving. Right now small and large missiles are the only worth using (minus large rails for taking out long-range targets).

Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.07 00:43:00 - [21] - Quote General Rian wrote: Skytt Syysch wrote: D3LTA NORMANDY wrote: But missle turrets are okay right now as a multi role turret. Missiles really aren't okay at all with how they currently function. Nothing really should be a multi role (so that counters can be established), and missiles are pretty much an every role right now. The only real trouble they have is shooting down a dropship that knows how to keep moving. Both the large and small missiles have the highest effective dps AND the highest splash dps and radius. They're kinda ridiculous right now. With a Large Missile Turret, hitting a moving dropship is a null-issue unless it's flying high into the air. I was killed very quickly in a well tanked Armor fit dropship even while moving. Yeah, when they connect, they do considerable damage, it's just the ones at extreme distances not moving in a straight line are a huge pain to hit with the travel time on the missiles. They're really the only thing that have an opportunity to be safe from the missiles, everything else is just points.
Thor Thunder Fist Better Hide R Die 79	Posted - 2012.09.07 02:42:00 - [22] - Quote Large Railguns: The problem: Railguns have way too much splash damage and splash radius. Last build, I and others felt things were fine. I forget what the radius was, but it felt about 3m, and the damage felt weakened vs infantry and in the range of 100-200 damage or so. Currently, railgun splash radius is 5m, and 415.5 to 674.4 damage. This will essentially oneshot most advanced and even prototype non-heavy suits. The solution: Lower the splash radius and splash damage. A roughly 1-1.5m radius would be fine, and the splash damage being brought way back down to the 100-200 range. This would make it more of a precision weapon, with close hits not being fully wasted, but not lethal either. Ammo change: 5 rails. 20 second reload. um....... it takes 7 shots to overheat a railgun dude........so your saying I should have to reload before I overheat? bah rails are fine with there over heat system if you miss too many times you have to stop for 5-10 sec. missiles could use reloading but I think blasters are fine without due to there lack of usefulness atm
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.08 07:03:00 - [23] - Quote Thor Thunder Fist wrote: um....... it takes 7 shots to overheat a railgun dude........so your saying I should have to reload before I overheat? bah rails are fine with there over heat system if you miss too many times you have to stop for 5-10 sec. missiles could use reloading but I think blasters are fine without due to there lack of usefulness atm Yes, I am saying that. Maybe the overheat should be reworked then if it becomes impossible to overheat. There's no need to stop for "5-10 sec" if you don't fire at maximum speed with it right now anyway, and if you have very brief pauses, you have unending damage output, which is why the reload is being suggested. The HAV needs some form of downtime (that is more than a few seconds), because right now it's just constant damage with no way of stopping the R1 presses, and that stop needs to be there for there to be an opportunity to present an opposition. Skytt Syysch wrote: Large Missiles: The problem: Missiles have way too much direct damage. They outclass railguns by far (the absolute weakest missile being the ONLY one that doesn't out-dps the strongest railgun), and this is what makes them too well-rounded. The splash damage is also high - ranging from 220.5 to 318.5 - enough to oneshot a lot of smaller suits and twoshot a lot of advanced and prototype setups (and it fires 4 times at once). The splash damage isn't a HUGE concern, if it's supposed to act as anti-infantry, though. The solution:Tone down the direct damage. It is currently 351 to 507 per missile, and we're talking drop it to the 50-100 range. The missile's damage should be almost entirely in its splash, with direct being a very minor bonus (a direct hit should also apply splash damage).Edit: Direct damage should have a penalty vs not-infantry (50-75%). If the current suit hp levels are to stay, the splash damage could use a little weakening as well, since proto heavies won't be like mini-LAVs in terms of health anymore. Ammo change: 24 missiles (6 shots). 25 second reload. I've included the above edit to the large missile turrets, indicating that a penalty vs not-infantry is a better approach to balancing them in that respect, rather than simply lowering the damage. The reason being the proposed change to drop the direct damage and include splash per direct hit still resulted in roughly the same direct damage. A 50% penalty should be the smallest penalty it receives, as that places it roughly 66% as effective as railguns against vehicles and structures using current values, which is still fairly close considering the gap envisioned in the effectiveness between the two is larger.
Dragonxkai Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2012.09.08 07:20:00 - [24] - Quote Consider projectile speed as a possible trait for each gun? Small Blasters = Fast Small Missiles = Slow Small Railgun = Fastest Large Blasters = Average Large Missiles = Slowest Large Railgun = Fastest Then since dps is important on the small blasters, much like a chaingun, provide a nice spread when firing and a longer firing period. For large blasters, they can fire slower in exchange for higher damage, but has a tigher spread than the small blasters. Increase the effective range for the blasters by about 50% so they can hit things a bit better from afar, but reduce the damage as the projectile flies further. So if you want to maintain the best damage for using a blaster, it's to use it mid range. It should be able to hit long range but not without it's spread making it inaccurate and weak damage that can barely kill infantries. Usually is to act like a suppressive fire.
Etero Narciss Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 112	Posted - 2012.09.08 08:11:00 - [25] - Quote Sooo... has this presented to the devs in IRC? Or should we spam the link to this thread whenever their presence is detected?
Skytt Syysch Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 235	Posted - 2012.09.08 19:50:00 - [26] - Quote Etero Narciss wrote: Sooo... has this presented to the devs in IRC? Or should we spam the link to this thread whenever their presence is detected? I already handed it off to one of them, yeah, though not sure if he passed it off to others or just read through it when I linked it to him. I'm in the IRC myself pretty regularly, and I throw the link out every time "tanks are OP" starts, which is pretty much 20 hours a day lately, but I think the devs flee from their computers when it begins.
vint trebble Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 46	Posted - 2012.09.09 16:45:00 - [27] - Quote I like posts like this. Rather then come in here and post 'Turrets are broekn FIX THEMS!' You have a means to an end. This is awesome! Obviously there is a need for a fix. I'm using LMVs as cars. Just a way to quickly get to point A to point B. It would be a lot more versatile if I could hold some fire power on the back of that thing. I personally believe that small missiles should receive a reduction to infantry, where small blasters should gain a bonus to infantry. Small missiles should gain a targeting system, with a reduction to infantry in order to give our little cars a means to shoot off a few rounds at tanks, and then drive off. I like using LMVs, I'd like them to pack a bit more of a punch.
Zen Hyabusa Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2012.09.10 01:26:00 - [28] - Quote Definite +1 on the post in general. What I don't understand is why tanks don't have to stop by a supply depot or at least a nanohive once in a while. Reload times between shots are covered in the RoF of the weapon. Why does everything else have a finite capacity except vehicle turrets? If they didn't, darn sure supply depots and logi guys would get real important in a hurry.
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1170	Posted - 2012.09.17 20:51:00 - [29] - Quote I'd like to add that if tank health stays at "easily soloed in 10 seconds" state, turrets should be pumped through the roof instead of this much more dynamic encouraging idea.


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.