| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
   |
Posted - 2013.01.01 03:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
As per the title, I'm seeking a Dev response regarding the indented role of each turret type within Dust 514.
Obviously players can fit and use them in many ways but what general battlefield role should each turret be optimized to fill?
This information is key in proper testing and feedback regarding the balance/iteration of turrets. Even a simple "AV, Infantry, or Hybrid" response with a general range (long, mid, short) for each type and sub-class (large, small) would greatly aid in proper testing of their on field effectiveness. As it stands there is contention within the community about what each type is supposed to be able to accomplish and lots of "static" in the data present as conflicting contexts are applied to the feedback given (often without clear/proper declaration of their underlying presumptions/suppositions).
@beta testers, If your own efforts to test would be aided by this information/if you support testers having the ability to use this information for testing please +1 this thread.
Cheers,
Cross |
Breakin Stuff
Immobile Infantry
680
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 04:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:As per the title, I'm seeking a Dev response regarding the indented role of each turret type within Dust 514.
Obviously players can fit and use them in many ways but what general battlefield role should each turret be optimized to fill?
This information is key in proper testing and feedback regarding the balance/iteration of turrets. Even a simple "AV, Infantry, or Hybrid" response with a general range (long, mid, short) for each type and sub-class (large, small) would greatly aid in proper testing of their on field effectiveness. As it stands there is contention within the community about what each type is supposed to be able to accomplish and lots of "static" in the data present as conflicting contexts are applied to the feedback given (often without clear/proper declaration of their underlying presumptions/suppositions).
@beta testers, If your own efforts to test would be aided by this information/if you support testers having the ability to use this information for testing please +1 this thread.
Cheers,
Cross
Blasters: Short range, fast tracking high DPS, low damage per shot, primarily antipersonnel/light vehicle
Missiles: Midrange alpha, midrange DPS, effective vs. infantry and vehicles. Kills things, not as good as more specialized weaps
Railgun: Long range, slow tracking, high Alpha HAV killer
Autocannon: short-mid range, fast tracking, high DPS, low damage per shot Antipersonnel/Light vehicle killer
Artillery: Extreme long range, extremely slow firing, Insane alpha, slow tracking HAV killer
beam lasers: Long range, high damage, low tracking. laser rifles are kinda the best way to look at it. Primarily AV
Pulse lasers: Short range, low damage per shot, high tracking antipersonnel/light vehicle |
Deveshi
WarRavens
144
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 07:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Intended role: Shooting things.
End of message. |
Deveshi
WarRavens
144
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 07:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Blasters: Short range, fast tracking high DPS, low damage per shot, primarily antipersonnel/light vehicle
Missiles: Midrange alpha, midrange DPS, effective vs. infantry and vehicles. Kills things, not as good as more specialized weaps
Railgun: Long range, slow tracking, high Alpha HAV killer
Autocannon: short-mid range, fast tracking, high DPS, low damage per shot Antipersonnel/Light vehicle killer
Artillery: Extreme long range, extremely slow firing, Insane alpha, slow tracking HAV killer
beam lasers: Long range, high damage, low tracking. laser rifles are kinda the best way to look at it. Primarily AV
Pulse lasers: Short range, low damage per shot, high tracking antipersonnel/light vehicle
I would add to this that in the description missiles are also meant for AA but they fail at this miserably. They equally fail at anti infantry due to ludicrous nerfing.
I'm on board with what break has said, another way of looking at it is comparing to the handheld varients:
blasters - assault rifles
missiles - swarm launchers? They messed this up a bit!
railguns - forge guns |
Breakin Stuff
Immobile Infantry
680
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 11:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm also including the amarr and minmatar weapons not yet introduced for the funzies. |
Crm234
Wraith Shadow Guards
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 18:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
they look pretty and give hacking points, other than that there pretty much useless. Terrible damage, Terrible auto tracking, terrible ranges. |
Deveshi
WarRavens
144
|
Posted - 2013.01.01 19:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:I'm also including the amarr and minmatar weapons not yet introduced for the funzies.
Yup, good to see another Eve vet :-) |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 23:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have my sense of what the turrets are for and can infer things based on experiences within EVE but I'd like to get some form of statement from the Devs about what "working as intended" is in this case. A weapon created to be AV and a weapon created to be an Infantry killer are going to have differing "as intended" profiles. Same with short range vs long range, or high RoF vs high Alpha.
The recent set of debates regarding the missile turret, and indeed turrets more broadly illustrates a lack of consensus within the testing community regarding what "as intended" is with these turrets so a Dev statement would be beneficial.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |