DUST Search - My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

Tiel Syysch wrote:

Garrett Blacknova wrote:

Re-read my suggestion for Autocannons.

Done right, it could provide pretty much exactly what you're asking.

What I'm asking is this:

Quote:

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.

Taken from the end of the 2nd post in this thread:

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34834

It's not a hybrid-purpose proposal. It's a desire to see a specifically AA weapon, because we need one (especially when faster aircraft come in). It can still spit out damage at other things if you're forced into a position to fight back, but you're not going to outdamage other people using really anything else. There's no need for the AA weapon to be capable of heavy anti-ground or anti-infantry support. It should ding things up, but never be the go-to weapon for those roles.

Weapons, especially vehicle turrets, need clearly defined roles. They need to excel at something and be capable of being countered by something else. Bring out your AA tank? Have fun dealing with ground forces. Bring out the AV one? Good luck when you're swarmed by infantry. Got the AI one? That AV tank or dropship is going to eat you.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.16 00:37:00 - [1] - Quote Personally, I don't think Small turrets should one-shot Heavies (except Proto turret or Advanced + damage mods against Miliita/Standard heavy suits). But Large Turrets should be comfortably one-shotting any infantry. They should also be comfortably MISSING said infantry more often than they hit though. It shouldn't be possible to reliably place a string of missiles on top of a Heavy suit from halfway across the map.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.18 12:00:00 - [2] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Keep in mind there are no militia shield extenders for vehicles. Militia Shield Extender exists for vehicles, but doesn't have a BPO version. Militia Heavy Shield Extender not only exists, but has a BPO version as well.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:13:00 - [3] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Also, why would a large blaster deal HMG damage if that's what autocannons are going to do? Autocannons are anti-air guns primarily. People seem to commonly confuse autocannons and Gatling cannons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocannon - these are not anti personnel weapons. Pretty sure YOU'RE the one thinking of the wrong kind of Autocannon. Try this link instead.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:25:00 - [4] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: I'm missing your point. Unless we are going gyrojet territory, you can't scale an autocannon down to anti-infantry sizes. The "tiny" cannon on that page is over a meter diameter. That there is a "Gatling" variant means there is a fusion of autocannon and Gatling feed, not that the two things are normally the same, otherwise it wouldn't need specified would it? 125mm is NOT 1m. 125mm = 12.5cm = 0.125m Also, how do you know they CAN'T make them smaller - there's nothing stating they can't, and plenty of reason to assume they just CHOOSE not to because smaller weapons aren't practical to use against spaceships.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 18:56:00 - [5] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Bah misread + typo equals fail. And yes, you can't scale them down due to the square-cube law. You basically need fission or better to get enough energy density in a bullet sized autocannon. Got a source for that which is both relevant to New Eden and capable of proving that our Dropsuits aren't already capable of the kind of power output we're talking about? Because with the ability to operate laser weapons, I'd say high energy requirements are par for the course.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:09:00 - [6] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: And this all goes back to an autocannon does NOT act like an HMG. Again, source? That's not what the New Eden definition sounds like.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:27:00 - [7] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Edit: Nothing from EVE wiki suggests they are anything but as I described them. Except the fact that several of the projectile options are non-explosive types, and the explosives specifically reference the kind of tech you're describing as being required for the charge to be effective in such a small projectile.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 21:57:00 - [8] - Quote Noc Tempre wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Edit: Nothing from EVE wiki suggests they are anything but as I described them. Except the fact that several of the projectile options are non-explosive types, and the explosives specifically reference the kind of tech you're describing as being required for the charge to be effective in such a small projectile. http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Projectile_ammunition Hmm, the only ones that don't have an explosive component are direct energy conversion (proton and plasma). Lets start on the list then. 1. Carbonised Lead - primarily kinetic, with a small explosive component to the damage. 2. Nuclear - exempt for obvious reasons. 3. Proton - non-explosive. 4. Depleted Uranium - "explosive" damage from a Depleted Uranium shell isn't likely to be from an actual explosive charge. 5. Titanium Sabot - again, primarily kinetic with explosive damage as a minor addition. 6. Fusion - see 2. 7. Plasma - non-explosive. 8. EMP - there's an explosive component to the damage done, but you can't argue that EMP projectiles are intended as an explosive weapon. Point still stands, and I'm surprised you didn't look at that link properly before posting it.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 22:30:00 - [9] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Flak cannons are an autocannon, and there is more need for them to have a proper AA turret than there is for a redundant machine gun-like role which the blasters fill. And what's to prevent them from filling BOTH roles to some degree? Weapons don't have to be single-purpose, and so far, I haven't seen a single weapon designed to counter one thing and ONLY that one thing. Why don't they make Autocannons a sort of middle-ground between Blasters and Missiles? Add a reload (X shots then reload) on Missile Turrets, set Autocannon Turrets up with the same principle, but a (much) larger ammo count before reloading, and they'd be rapid-fire instead of the single-shot or burst-fire of Missile Turrets, with projectiles exploding at a certain range or on contact with the target. There could be a Flak variant with larger blast radius and shorter range. Does that sound good?
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 23:28:00 - [10] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Weapons don't have to be single-purpose They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything. Since when does "multi-purpose" mean "best at everything" though? Forge Guns are GREAT against Dropships and LAVs, pretty good against HAVs, and struggle against infantry, particularly in CQC. NOT a single-purpose weapon, but has weaknesses to exploit. ARs are an ALL-PURPOSE weapon, but are balanced for the most part, because other weapons out-perform them in the right situations. Shotguns and SMGs do CQC better than ARs, Snipers handle long-range better. And of course, their versatility is countered by vehicles. Most weapons do one or two things WELL, and then have a couple of other things they CAN do, but aren't really the best option for. Everything has a counter.

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.19 23:51:00 - [11] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tiel Syysch wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Weapons don't have to be single-purpose They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything. Since when does "multi-purpose" mean "best at everything" though? I never said "best." I'm fine with things able to step into a role it's not intended for, such as railguns shooting infantry, they just need to be severely restricted in doing so. I want to see autocannons be the AA turret because we have no other dedicated AA turret out of any of the other categories. Let them attack other targets, but be pathetic in doing so. They don't have to only be able to shoot at aerial targets, but they can't overshadow any of the others if you branch out into using them in different roles (they shouldn't even be close). That's what I mean by single-purpose. Re-read my suggestion for Autocannons. Done right, it could provide pretty much exactly what you're asking.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.11.20 01:29:00 - [12] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Re-read my suggestion for Autocannons. Done right, it could provide pretty much exactly what you're asking. What I'm asking is this: Quote: 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. Taken from the end of the 2nd post in this thread: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34834 It's not a hybrid-purpose proposal. It's a desire to see a specifically AA weapon, because we need one (especially when faster aircraft come in). It can still spit out damage at other things if you're forced into a position to fight back, but you're not going to outdamage other people using really anything else. There's no need for the AA weapon to be capable of heavy anti-ground or anti-infantry support. It should ding things up, but never be the go-to weapon for those roles. Weapons, especially vehicle turrets, need clearly defined roles. They need to excel at something and be capable of being countered by something else. Bring out your AA tank? Have fun dealing with ground forces. Bring out the AV one? Good luck when you're swarmed by infantry. Got the AI one? That AV tank or dropship is going to eat you. Honestly, it doesn't sound significantly different from what I was suggesting. Explosive weapon, auto-detonates at a certain range with a good blast radius and most of its damage as blast damage rather than direct damage. Main difference is that I suggested different variants of the weapon having different range and blast radius. Did you even read my post before reposting your own? You could have just pointed out that I was saying very similar things to what you were.