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

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

My proposition to balance vehicles, turrets, and AV

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [1] - Quote I sent this in to some members of CCP, and others have asked me for it and thought itGÇÖd be worthwhile to post for the community at large. Here are my thoughts on what to do with the current state of vehicles, turrets, and AV. Some edits have been made from the original email, largely because I canGÇÖt attach an excel sheet here to reference all the changes. Sorry if thereGÇÖs anything that I forgot to edit that makes it sound weird. Fair warning - this is going to be a long post. Alright, so I've messed with numbers quite a bit, which are all on post 4. What I have is a huge reduction in damage for the vehicle turrets, because I'm basing them on not being able to oneshot people at max turret skill, except for things like railguns, which the small will be able to oneshot weaker suits with some skill investment, and the large will possibly drop some heavies. The numbers, though, are balanced around max skill, which current numbers don't feel like they are (you can build a large missile tank that hits for something like 7600 damage per shot vs armor, small missiles that hit for >500 splash damage [IGÇÖve found much higher damages since typing this up, such as 900 splash damage per hit, even more fair], totally dumb and it doesn't feel like you guys are aware of things like that, so some current stuff is waaaay broken). The numbers are also close to infantry weapon damage ranges (not necessarily intentional, just what they came out to doing from what I felt would be a good starting position on damage): - Small missile hits like mass driver splash - Small blaster hits like AR - Small rail hits like pistol - Large missile hits a little harder than a proto mass driver - Large blaster hits like HMG - Large rail hits kinda like an infinite clip sniper rifle The numbers for the above comparisons are the adjusted damage/minute values taking reloads into consideration (they donGÇÖt include SP investment for damage bonuses on the handheld weapon side of things, though). I'd honestly be fine, in theory, with blasters and rails losing their overheat, considering missiles don't have them. I think in the long-term, having reload functions on the turrets would be a possibility if it's needed, I'm not a fan of the proposition that comes up every now and then of them having finite ammo. So for the numbers, I think it's easy to read and doesn't need much explanation. The damage is listed as dpm, not dps, and there are 2 values there. The first is base damage, the second following the comma is max skill damage (this is present in both per round damage and dpm values). Railguns have just the turret op, hybrid turret op, and hybrid turret prof skill bonuses. Blasters have the 3 skills plus marauder for gallente tank use. Missiles have those 4 skills plus 2 20% damage modules taken into consideration, for caldari tank use and having the low slots "available" to dump damage mods into easily (a lot of people seem to on caldari vehicles). The large turrets are all 1.56x the strength of the corresponding small turret in terms of dpm, I tweaked numbers slightly to get them in-line with each other for the most part, 2 ended up being the same so I just made the 3rd as well. So, all the damage values are basically balanced around the modified damage, rather than things getting wildly out of control once people skill into them like now. Missiles took the biggest hit overall, but everything dropped pretty drastically. I tweaked a couple rate of fires, I think mainly for missiles, both large and small got slower, largely because of their ability to just keep you staring at your feet from the damage jerk. The railgun RoF also is just a combination of the charge+cooldown time, they should be the numbers we have now.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [2] - Quote I've got some proposed ranges in there as well, and I'm not sure how you are able to tweak the falloff, if you can do it how I want. Basically the numbers there, such as the blaster one... 150 (100%) GÇô 200 (75%) GÇô 250 (50%) GÇô 275 (0%) ...means that up to 150m it'll do 100% damage, then by 200m you'd hit for 75%, then by 250m you'd hit for 50%, then it'd drop to 0% by 275m. The * on the missiles and railgun means max range, have them blow up at that distance. They don't need infinite range, that's part of the problem with them that'll never be balanced if they can shoot forever. I'd be fine with small turrets being the same or slightly lower range, I only have numbers for the large turrets. I've also only got the standard variants listed, so for things like the railgun that takes longer to charge but hits harder could still be a variant based off these new numbers. As for balancing hp, I think the easiest way to do this would be to cut AV damage by 50%. Again, being balanced around max skills and damage module use. Right now, it just hits too hard vs everything. All vehicles need more hp, and this would be the easiest way to do it without breeding super tanks. I forget what the numbers were, but it was something like 8-9 proto swarms or so to drop a max-fit armor tank with the 50% damage decrease, which I feel is a good place, because that's not much with coordinated teams, which is where the balance should come, restrict vehicle usage in public games to balance that if needed. That's swarms, forges, and grenades that need to take a hit to their damage. I think the REs and proximity mines are good for their damage and won't be a problem since they require you to drive over where they placed them in advance, instead of them taking the damage to the vehicle. One thing that does need to be balanced for vehicles - the active hardener should only allow either one to be equipped at a time, or only one active at a time, however that's possible or how you want to handle it. We came across a Sagaris earlier that had I think 2 active hardeners and 3 repairs, and it was nearly impossible to bring down, and we only did because he apparently went braindead and charged out into the open and we just pooped on him with a dropship nonstop. He was invincible otherwise when he hid behind cover, and that kind of fit would be a problem with lowering all AV/vehicle damage overall. So, limit the active hardeners in some way that they can't have 2 going at once, especially since that stacks with missile resistance for shield tanks. I think the small missiles end up in a nice place, though, doing ~140 splash damage at max skill with 2 damage mods, ~115 without the marauder bonus which is where it'd be on an LAV/dropship. I think that's a good spot, since it's significant enough that it'd make an impact on someone, but not so bad that you'd be oneshotting heavies like we do right now. With the damage back-loaded, meaning you get more of your damage after the skill investment instead of being able to just rampage from the get-go, it also prevents the nonsense of free LAV missile platforms, if they're dealing much lower damage. It'll be a problem in public games forever if they're hitting as hard as they do now - no SP or ISK investment just spitting missiles across the map at people. Overall, this will make the vehicles much more support (I hope). LAVs and dropships won't be full on assault vehicles, and a tank will function like a high hp dropsuit that has 3 people fused together in it, focus-firing all their guns. It'll hit about as hard as an infantry weapon with only the driver in it, but it'll be 3 guns in one with passengers, which will make it more effective and able to assault, but the damage won't be so high that it can just pound people into the ground without having resistance. The damage drop will also prevent a bunch of run and gun kind of tactics, which I personally feel shouldn't be as effective as they are. They will still happen, but they'll be more "soften up a group" and less "kill everything in the area." I think the damage may be coming down too much and possibly relying on SP too much, but values are based on current skills giving the bonuses they do. If you want to remove damage from the skills, and do something like turret turn speed instead, then I'd bump up the base damage to compensate.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [3] - Quote Other kinda related issues: 1. Resists are still useless at their current values. I have the math that shows it. 15% or lower does not outperform the bonus you get from simply adding more raw hp (at least for armor vehicles anyway, Noc says shield resists are as useless). 25% was too much, but only for shields really, since most AV is missile-based, and shields get a damage reduction vs those as well. Maybe 18-20% as the highest to make them viable? I'm currently regretting the 120k SP I have in armor adaptation L2 right now, because it does nothing for me. 2. Afterburner module has too high fitting cost, unless you want only one dropship to be able to use it, and not be able to fit much of anything else when doing so. 3. Militia swarms either need to go, or we need a militia forge to have more balanced AV options, otherwise shields will have an advantage in public games. 4. Shield modules are way more expensive than armor modules. Like upwards of 5x the ISK cost. Bring shields down, not armor up. 5. Please remove burning armor. It doesn't make any sense, and forces everyone to active armor tank or risk being punished for barely surviving. It's not a fun mechanic, it doesn't make the game any more enjoyable to play whenever it happens, regardless of what side of it I'm on. 6. Not related, but frag grenade damage needs to go down. It's kinda related to the tank thing in that it's not fun to be oneshot, which is why vehicle damage needs to come down. I personally think frag grenade damage should range 100-400 damage, not whatever it is now, which I think is 3/400-6/700. It was more passable with the old suit hp levels, but it's not ok anymore. 7. Railgun turret needs to be instant hit again to compensate for its turn speed and to make it stand out from missiles. 8. Swarm pathing is still broken. It feels like it's trying to follow the path the vehicle it's locked onto is taking, rather than trying to hit the vehicle. They literally fly at dropships, go past them, then turn around and follow the path the dropship is taking until it hits. They're acting really weird this build. 9. Small turrets on ground vehicles still jerk all around. Dropship turrets are fine and just have to compensate momentum, it doesn't feel like compensating momentum on ground vehicles, they still feel like they just spazz the hell out and fire off to the side. It's not a natural correction to pick up, nor is it consistent, like it is with dropships. The jerking around is the worst it has ever been with any build from my experience. I honestly really want to be able to see how things go with these kinds of changes following the tournament (just because there should be no balancing during the tournament period). You may not agree with them, but it's for science! They're just number changes, just let people know on the forums that there's gonna be a drastic change for temporary testing, and if things go horribly wrong, revert the numbers. As things are now, though, there needs to be something drastic done. Missiles are the biggest offenders, but all turrets are wildly out of control with damage output, which is making all vehicles kind of ridiculous and impossible to balance. If the damage goes down, the hp has to go up, and AV damage is absurd as well right now because everyone complains tanks are too hard to kill, so it just kinda screwed everything. It's all about things being fun, and it's not fun to die in one hit, especially when all these people are going to be running expensive dropsuits, to just lose one if you're touched kinda slightly by a vehicle isn't fun.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 05:45:00 - [4] - Quote turret / damage (splash) , max skill damage (splash) / RoF / dpm (splash dpm) , max skill dpm (splash) LARGE Standard missile / 45x4 (30x4) , 105.8x4 (70.6x4) / 3.3 / 3272 , 7698 (2181 , 5132) Adv missile / 49.5x4 (33x4) , 116.4x4 (77.6x4) / 3.3 / 3600 , 8468 (2400 , 5645) Proto missile / 54x4 (36x4) , 127x4 (84.7x4) / 3.3 / 3927 , 9238 (2618 , 6158) Range : 200 (100%) GÇô 300 (75%) GÇô 400 (50%) Standard blaster / 25 , 41.7 / 428.6 / 10715 , 17891 Adv blaster / 27.5 , 45.9 / 428.6 / 11786 , 19681 Proto blaster / 30 , 50.1 / 428.6 / 12858 , 21470 Range: 150 (100%) GÇô 200 (75%) GÇô 250 (50%) GÇô 275 (0%) Standard rail / 350 , 487 / 2.8 / 7500 , 10436 Adv rail / 385 , 535.7 / 2.8 / 8250 , 11479 Proto rail / 420 , 584.4 / 2.8 / 9000 , 12523 Range: 300 (100%) GÇô 450 (75%) GÇô 600 (50%) SMALL Standard missile / 70 (50) , 164.7 (117.6) / 2 / 2100 , 4940 (1500 , 3528) Adv missile / 77 (55) , 181 (129.4) / 2 / 2310 , 5434 (1650 , 3881) Proto missile / 84 (60) , 197.6 (141.1) / 2 / 2520 , 5928 (1800 , 4234) Standard blaster / 8 , 13.4 / 857.1 / 6856 , 11449 Adv blaster / 8.8 , 14.7 / 857.1 / 7542 , 12594 Proto blaster / 9.6 , 16 / 857.1 / 8228 , 13739 Standard rail / 160 , 222.6 / 2 / 4800 , 6679 Adv rail / 176 , 244.9 / 2 / 5280 , 7347 Proto rail / 192 , 267.2 / 2 / 5760 , 8015 Other weapons base dpm values GÇô adjusted for reloads GÇô standard / proto AR GÇô 13846 / 16615 Sniper GÇô 9250 / 11100* SMG GÇô 12307 / 14769 Pistol GÇô 7411 / 8894 HMG GÇô 19662 / 23595 Mass Driver GÇô 6750 / 8100 (3450 / 4140 splash) *not adjusted for reloads If you want to compare current dpm values for turrets, at proto level, standard variants - base / modified by skills: LARGE Missile - 48672 (30576) / 114496 (71926) Blaster - 58503 / 97688 Railgun - 37374 / 52005 SMALL Missile - 17062 (9750) / 40136 (22935) Blaster - 23398 / 39069 Railgun - 16533 / 23005
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 18:14:00 - [5] - Quote Umbat Boki wrote: I think you wrote mainly about corp-corp battles. There is also random matches. Also economic aspect needs to be analysed imo. Yeah, the balancing point in my opinion should be around the higher-level gameplay. We can't balance around one guy in a pub half-assedly trying to kill vehicles, otherwise when we reach something like the tournament, we have people insta-killing vehicles left and right with coordination. Balance should be around the upper level of SP investment and player skill, and if needed, artificial restrictions such as vehicle limits or level of gear (standard or advanced gear only lobbies) to balance the pub games to preserve the fun aspect. I'm not sure how to balance the economic aspect. Currently, vehicles aren't worth it financially. I think the current prices are good as prices for vehicles, as in they hurt to lose, but they're not impossible for someone without corp backing to obtain. Those prices just need to be worth it, since right now if you face more than random guys who don't know what they're doing, you're not going to keep the vehicle alive enough games to have it pay for itself. Laurent Cazaderon wrote: Overall a pretty good job and good view of infantry\vehicle balance. i'd support the idea of reconsidering Turret damage any day ! But, i'm surprised you didnt add a HP buff to vehicles with those corrections, dont you think it might be very much needed then ? The HP buff is in there as a nerf to AV. I feel all vehicles need more hp, and that seemed like the most beneficial way to do that. I played with numbers a bit before settling on that as the way to do it, such as bumping only hull hp, or bumping only module hp, and they often led to super tanks, where on paper I could see them being a huge problem and certain builds being practically invincible (such as 8k+ hp and 3 heavy reps).
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 20:06:00 - [6] - Quote Cyn Bruin wrote: Please give some feedback or at least acknowledge you saw this well thought out post CCP, that beta tester is putting in some work for you guys. I had actually emailed this directly to Wolfman, and he said he passed it around to the dev team, so they should have seen it unless they just did a mass print out session to light it on fire.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.15 23:15:00 - [7] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I stopped reading when you said it should take a tank-mounted anti-tank weapon to one shot a heavy. The idea is that there shouldn't be oneshots existing anywhere, but the nature of the railgun being anti-vehicle would possibly still manage oneshots on some of the lower to mid-range suits. Thanks for being constructive, though.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 02:57:00 - [8] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: after actually reading more, my main argument is that this would make vehicle vs vehicle very very slow- possibly making it next to impossible for vehicles to destroy eachother if the drivers know what they're doing. Who's to say vehicles are supposed to be the primary anti-vehicle weapon? Your swarm and forge buddies aren't going to disappear with these changes. A tank user trying to solo it with just the main gun will run into issues against another tank at these damage output levels, but that'll be his fault for not having passengers. And to your above post, the weapons hit essentially like infantry weapons, and people seem to be able to kill infantry with things like ARs, HMGs and Mass Drivers, so it's not going to be that much harder using similar damage output from a vehicle. The objective is to get away from the drive-by oneshot everything nonsense that we have now, and the only way to do that is to drop damage to the point of not being able to oneshot people.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 03:35:00 - [9] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: the drive-by-oneshot stuff is the issue with missiles. not vehicles as a whole. It's a problem with all turrets. I can build a large blaster that does over 400 damage per round. Guess how long you'll last against that as infantry, assuming I don't get a headshot since blasters are capable of headshot bonuses. Only one suit (a 100% hp-fit proto heavy) would survive a shot by the weakest large rail with minimum SP investment. The damage isn't only a problem vs infantry, the vehicles kill each other way too quickly as well. It's wholly a matter of who shoots first right now, because it's only the first to 1-3 shots that wins the encounter.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 22:56:00 - [10] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: So.. why would anyone use an LAV after this happens? It only makes the gunner an easier target, if they're doing infantry-level damage. There's rumors that LAVs are getting some kind of roof to protect the infantry inside LAVs won't be insta killed due to the AV nerf Properly skilling up in the turrets will still deal reasonable damage They're considering a supply depot kind of vehicle module and LAVs would be great as a mobile supply depot Remote repairs still exist They are still good transport for slower troops that need to move long distances

Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.16 23:39:00 - [11] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Would this be too late to mention I made a thread on this a while ago? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=43677&find=unread I actually saw that when it was posted, but it doesn't solve the problem that turrets hit way too damn hard, and vehicles without oneshotting everyone around them will be way too squishy. You say that the fix to missiles is lower their splash damage, when their direct damage is also wildly out of control (a large railgun with 5 damage mods has only 73% the damage output of a large missile with 2 damage mods). Railgun fix is to simply increase their range, when they also deal insane damage (to the point that upper end damage 3shots the highest vehicle hp you can create, in about 6-8 secs). There's way more problems with vehicles than you address, though I do like the idea of more swarms and some kind of flux variant to weapons. Myself and Noc have also proposed some ideas to fix swarms, which many of us agree are a problem weapon in their current form.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.17 03:57:00 - [12] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Well, I'm not completely against your suggestion: it's just a little extreme for my taste. Turrets should always be at least slightly more powerful than weapons you can carry around of the equivalent tier, IMO. The only one hurt by it is the LAV. The dropship gets 2 guns and the tank gets 3. Trying to solo it with one person will make you weaker than having all your passengers filled. Also, LAV will only be hurt by the change if we never get the shotgun passenger able to fire from his seat, which I think they're going to add eventually. The turrets themselves don't necessarily have to out-damage infantry if there are multiple guns firing from the vehicle.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.17 19:56:00 - [13] - Quote lDocHollidayl wrote: Proxy mines need to matter...they are terrible. Nice post. Grenades as a whole are fine..kind of. You do not see a spam of grenades because they are not OP. They currently only do full damage at the center...when you are at the edge of the splash you do not receive the full damage. Maps are huge and hitting a guy with a nade is hard enough. Please do not nerf nades. In fact fix grenades so that terrain does not create such barriers. Let us have grenades that blow up 3D not 2D. I'm honestly not sure what the damage is on grenades thanks to their useless damage listed in the info window. Aren't they kinda broken right now as a result of "fixing" their staying around forever? If the proto ones are hitting in the realm of 2000 damage, though, then it needs to come down. For flux grenades, 1800 vs shields is quite a bit, since shields are generally lower than armor, and you're looking at a max shield tank only in the realm of 6-8k hp maybe, which is essentially 3-4 grenades at that point. 2k damage vs armor is pretty awful to be on the armor side of things, since right now max fit is in the 10-12k range. @Berserker Yeah things are expected to be balanced around corp battles and tournament play, otherwise things are made pretty pathetic there if they're balanced around pubs. I'm totally fine with infantry-only lobbies and some kind of restrictions on vehicles in pubs to preserve the fun aspect there, since instant battle should be more fair and fun than "let me solo rampage in my invinci-gear." I'm fine with SP being rebalanced too, but it's never going to be a good balancing factor. It's pretty easy right now to get a functional tank, but it's a huge grind to fully max it out, but if you just increase the SP, the power discrepancy will still be there, I'm just going to get it later and then still be stronger. As for LAVs, I'd love to see them take collision damage equal to the hp of a person they run over, I've seen that proposed before. That'll cut down on them being used to squish people, and make them less of a problem not being able to oneshot them with a forge. Or, we could just cut the starter LAV's hp to compensate, I'm totally fine with that being a garbage vehicle and dying near-instantly to anything.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.19 19:04:00 - [14] - Quote Still doesn't matter if blasters function like a machine gun, why would autocannons be another machine gun instead of a flak cannon type weapon to have a proper AA turret? Edit: And it's not that the blaster is "dealing HMG damage," it's dealing damage per minute comparable to an HMG. Those comparisons were just for comparison purposes, to give infantry an idea of damage output relativity to things they use.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.19 22:09:00 - [15] - Quote Oh my god, it doesn't matter. 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.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.19 22:58:00 - [16] - Quote 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.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.19 23:46:00 - [17] - Quote 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.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.20 01:19:00 - [18] - Quote 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.
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.11.20 18:07:00 - [19] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: 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. The confusion probably stems from your incessant arguing with Noc over what an autocannon is, when he was suggesting they be something along the lines of a flak cannon. It's hard to tell you want them to be what I want them to be when you're arguing with him and he and I share the same idea about them. Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Noc Tempre wrote: Because we want people to use blasters for once. If you want people to use blasters, why does this thread suggest heavily nerfing them? It's not only nerfing blasters. It's dropping all turret damage down, and missiles are being hit the hardest. Blasters rip infantry up, though, it's not like they need to 2-3 shot people at the rate of fire they have. It's about bringing vehicle damage down so they aren't insta-killing infantry, because that's not necessarily fun to fight against, and gives us a better point of balance than essentially oneshotting.

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.