If the AV Mana turret is getting nerfed this much, then it needs a serious balance buff

I remember when I first got it. The first things I noticed were:

• No shield, so I'm totally exposed and an easy kill

• No zoom, making it a real chore to stay on target, or even find targets sometimes

• "Reticle" is a tiny, almost invisible pixel, which is really unfair to those with lesser eyesight or sitting back from the monitor. This specifically is something that was not well thought out because it's unfair on just a basic human level. All players should be able to reasonably see what is going on in the game.

So now, not only is the damage being nerfed by about 50%, but it's damage resistance is reduced as well.

This thing is being reduced into a pointless suicide weapon. Presumably, the reason for all of the downsides this thing has was to balance out the decent damage it does and its' unlimited redeployability.

The bottom line is, with these new negatives, there is no longer a reason to keep the old ones. We need buffs to balance this out. Why should I continue to expose myself for half the damage? I'd be better off just hitting vehicles with my 5 round Archer, which has zoom, velocity, and allows me to hit and run, duck and cover, plus a higher RoF.

So I suggest the following balances:

• Add the same shield that the AI turret has
• Add at least a 2x zoom
• Reduce the cooldown time by at least 1/3rd

Devs, this turret is a high risk weapon. With these new changes, I'm not sure I see the point in using it except for niche situations where you can be assured of personal safety. Please consider the buffs I suggest above.

Here are the notes from PTS on this:

AV MANA Turret Damage from 1335 to 700 Blast · Inner Damage from 500 to 250 · Inner Radius form 0.35 to 0.5 · Outer Damage from 1 to 50 Dev Note: MANA AV turret damage was missed in the initial pass. In most cases, hits needed to kill or hits to burning goes up by 1 and it can no longer one-hit kill full health infantry. We're considering a redesign of this weapon, but for now this brings it in line with the current baseline changes.

I forgot to add this part:

MANA Turrets
MANA Engineer Turrets no longer resist explosive damage. This returns the hits to kill to their previous values for many weapons.

If you haven't noticed, aside from starter gear, EVERYTHING you can cert into or spend DB on is a niche weapon. I hated the Trac 5 so I got the Cougar. Guess what? Niche weapon. Have to stay a reasonable distance away or the bad guys shred you with higher RoF.

Got the MCG for my HA. What do you know? Niche weapon. Great indoors, not so much outdoors. Totally useless at range.

Know what does need a buff? The MAX for all factions. It's supposed to be a tank with legs capable of annihilating entire squads of infantry and going toe to toe with light armor. Ha! and Ha! Ha! This is completely untrue. A single decent LA can kill a MAX, and as far as light armor goes, anyone with a Harasser can just come running you over and insta kill you. Harassers need a hit from the nerf hammer. Or the nerf bong, which the devs seem to be smoking.

Speaking of nerfing, nerf those friggin Infiltrators. I shouldn't need to shoot one of those silly little knife ninjas 40 times point blank to kill them.

The way I see it, the fact that it needs to be deployed, makes you a stationary sniper target, not to mention that it has a limited field of aim, the MANA turret really ought to pack the most punch of any rocket launcher. I'm saying at least 975, like the new Decimator, if not an even 1000 if they wont adjust it's rate of fire.

You're forgetting that tanks are losing all their directional armour.

Before to the front of a MBT your 1,335 damage missile would be reduced to 32-37% effectiveness to 427-494 damage (without calculating resists).

Now because tanks apparently don't even get armour anymore, your new 700 damage missile will do 700 damage (without calculating resists).

In exchange tanks get an extra 1,000 HP, which isn't actually that much. Without directional armour and using the known resist values, your AV MANA turret does an extra 50% damage to tanks, or 1,050 total damage. Pretty much you could eat through the "extra" HP of a MBT in a single hit, while doing more damage to the tank than you could before.

This isn't an AV MANA turret nerf... it is a very significant buff to the AV MANA turret. As usual, tanks are getting completely shafted.

Hmm, interesting. Well, I'm betting this effective buff won't last, since I doubt it is their intention to buff it. Ironic, because it doesn't really need a damage buff, imo. It needs a shield and a decent reticle so I can stop using wrinkle cream around my eyes after playing it. For balance of the shield, I'd be ok having the hp lowered some, which they've done with the resist reduction, but maybe it could have a little more, I don't know.

I would just like to be able to survive 1 or 2 hits from a sniper and give me a chance to hop off and run away. I just don't like the 'sitting duck' aspect of it.

So it won't OHK a full health infantryman any more but has same / better damage against armour. Let's see how that pans out.

Agreed that the reticle is a difficult thing to use sometimes and the range nerf is a shame. But being a suicide weapon is the main drawback (and always was). If manning the turret increased armour or removed the headshot multiplier or something I'd be pleased.

You clearly haven't played this game long enough. Infantryside 2 is completely intended to give infantry players every advantage against what should be multi-ton death machines and to eliminate the ability for armour to effectively fight back.

These are the patch notes that will prevent a 100mm HEAT shell from killing infantry with direct hits.

So yes, completely intentional. Let no one stop the Devs from turning a combined arms game into CoD in space.

Everyone better damn look like HALO Spartans to justify this.

When is armor unable to fight back exactly?
When it is blasting infantry to bits 10 meters away, 300+ meters way?
When it is getting the 107th rocket hit that half-hour?
Like the only things that don't let a vehicle "fight back" is a C-4 blast on a tank from an aircraft-assisted LA \ The luckiest LA, and aircraft.

Like they are death machines.
They are getting changes, to make AI options more competitive with anti-armor weapons of the vehicles.
You know, it's kinda hard when an Anti-armor weapon one-shots a target faster than an AI can kill right?
You can now know what can kill you in how many shots, without an arcane tablet! (resistance charts)
Anti-infantry vehicle weapons (for some reason) can now fight armored vehicles.
Takes more rockets to die, as a vehicle. - Reload was speed up however.
Lock-ons were ****** in range.

And there's that anti-C-4 armor that blocks a single C-4 from demo'ing a bloody MBT.
Not saving it from dedicated LA with fate's luck, but from random C-4 at least.


Though, some of it, is quite ******.

Not sure why on the HEAT either, but maybe since it's default or something.
Otherwise, just as confused.

They were ****** in range? You mean 100 meters less, on a 450 meter range weapon, let's examine that for a second, 450 range is well out infantry render, and half of aircraft render range, 100 meters less to 350 is barely within infantry render, I'd hardly call that bad considering they also got a lock speed buff, reload speed, and the best lockon weapon, anhil has even faster locking and reloading for what you might ask? -your soul- 50 less DIRECT damage. So considering that matters so ******* little and you retain 350 locking range on tanks, I'd really like to know what you think ****** means. Let's also not forget that those missles explode near aircraft now, so very f- ugh no, near impossible without cover misses.

Reload actually gave launchers MORE DPS than just alpha. "Increasing interaction time between infantry and vehicles" my ***.

That C4 armor, does it stop 2 bricks? No? Why ******* bother then? If you're getting pecked by air, dying slower doesn't help nil to ****. In case of TANKBUSTER or literally any lib belly gun, hell even a walker that's "not versatile enough" shreds still. Not toning down damage done to tanks by walker sends a pretty clear message at this point.

Some of these changes get stupider than that even, but nah, tanks can 1 hit kill infantry with a 4 second reload tank gun, obviously op. Not the top shotgun either, the vehicle ******* mounted shotgun, doesn't one shot, the AI focused vehicle mounted shotgun. Sure, bring in the range, makes sense, but the cone of fire nerf mutilated the weapon, on top of a damage nerf, and swapping it to the HMG type, why? I don't need a shotgun to shoot tanks, I need a topgun I can rely on for infantry because the turrets are still ******* garbage. HESH got 50 on it's minimal damage! Woo! How insignificant is that? Oh it can fight tanks now? Again why do I ******* need to? I'm focusing on anti infantry effectiveness, I don't need to fight tanks, that's the whole ******* point. I don't fight ESFs with AI noseguns (well personally I do) it's ineffective as ****, that's the point of specialization, but so far this change threw that out the window too.

One lockon to rule them all, one shell that does everything, AI, AV, and second AV topguns that are hardly different at all, guess meaningful choices in combat were overrated.

Lock-ons usually end in death unless swarmed.
And target can fly pretty high & far, not mention fast.
- But You are correct, I glazed over that. Which sorta figures. So that's glorious news! Well for me at least.

****** for tanks, but still glorious for attacking aircraft.
- I think they are doing more passes for those? Beyond the whole fire angle thing. (?)
As yeah, that'd be ****** up. (Walker effective vs tanks)


Never said they didn't screw tanks up with some changes.
I think I mentioned that.
Beyond that, well yeah that works.

350 meters and no themals and a cloak bus are plenty to take down any ESF unwary, or just 3 dudes with rocket launchers. I do this frequently, air literally can't do **** about it, but people don't pick the smart option because generally the average players brain only works in one way, "It's killing me, must be op if I can't shoot it".

Being fair to all parts of the game is balance, how many of your deaths are actually caused by any vehicle?

If you can lock at a point where you literally side step shells, that's pretty ******* good just saying. "I can hit him but he can't hit me? Obviously fair, totally."

Second pass with the PTS did literally nothing to walkers. Nerf furys for being "too versatile", but I suppose a great AA platform that can shred tanks faster than the bassy is perfectly not versatile!

Lastly, how can you say this all works Ever fly into a 90+ zone? Or even a 24? So the rebalance covers vehicle survivability in those places right? Or is it just **** air and all that has ever done to my codside? What about "increasing engagement times with vehicles verses infantry so that one side doesn't feel completely wiped out", so obviously that means buff infantry rocket DPS so that less planes fly. How was that not a straight up lie?

Maybe make dmg 1250 for av and for ai idk.

Stop spouting lies. You are making the ******* asinine Reddit-explosion of the most vocal minority of the planet even worse. I feel ******* sorry for the devs who have to stand this idiocy.
Armor does not disappear. Instead, they shifted system from mitigating damage on armored parts to increasing damage to unarmored parts.
This makes ****-all of a difference, aside from making the numbers in the game easier to understand. And if you do not understand why the numbers should be less arbitrary, I feel sorry for you.

Also, **** MANA turrets. They are completely ******** and should just be thrown out. The only thing they do is make you a headshot magnet or block allies at doorways. The AV one has niche use, but the AI one is a piece of junk. And the waist-high wall is like a MANA turret on steroids - it blocks allies even better and is even less useful.

Actually it does. Attacking from the side with whatever is now the same as hitting the front, unlike on live where side-armour is weaker than the front.

Yes, but that's an addition of armor, not a removal. So it actually makes that guy's post even more misleading.

No, he is stating that the devs are simplifying the system, marginalizing the tactics of front and side armor. It also means that all damage you see on the weapons card will do 100% of that damage instead of the resist tables. His post was not misleading, they ARE removing directional armor, they added 1-2k extra HP, but directional armor had 68-75% reductions, his calculations were spot on and vehicles are getting shafted.

There is no mathematical difference between raising damage by 50% and adding 50% damage reduction or just keeping the damage and not bothering with a silly 50% reduction.

That 100% of a weapon's damage will be done in most situations is a good thing. Up until now weapon damage was so arbitrary, thanks to the bat**** insane amount of damage types, that there was no point in bothering.
When each weapon's damage is so case-dependant that you can fill a fifty column matrix with it, you might want to reconsider your damage model. Which the devs did, thank ****. (And yes, I know that it would technically be a fifty-dimensional vector for any weapon that doesn't have a damage-affecting alt fire mode or attachment)

Also, the changes to HP and resistance are not happening in a vacuum. Your numbers sound a lot less outrageous when you mention that most weapons have been roughly halved in damage.
Also, define "75% reduction of directional armor". The current reduction is 100%. Armor was removed, not reduced.

From the perspective of this thread, yes it matters a lot.

The OP pretty much came in here and said, "hey they're nerfing the AV MANA turret because they're reducing the damage from 1,335 to 700".

While it's true that they are halving the damage, this is explained by the fact that locational armour is removed from the game. Before if you took a hit to the front in a MBT, your incoming damage would be reduced by 63-68%.

The new plan is that the frontal and side areas take no less damage, while the rear hits take an extra 100% damage (way up from the 32% resistance before). This means that a 1,335 damage missile would do 1,335 damage, not 427-494 damage.

Because that would be ridiculous (a 2-3x buff to AV damage), they had to reduce the damage output of the AV MANA turret to take into the account the fact that tanks are losing their directional armour. A second reason was that they don't want an AV MANA turret hit to OHK infantry (which is totally stupid for other reasons).

So the question is exactly what the change does. I'll do the math for you using the Lightning as a model.

Frontal Hits
Now- 700.875 damage, 5 STK (1,335 damage, reduced to 35% from directional armour, increased to 150% from resistance type)
PTS- 1,050 damage, 4 STK (700 damage, increased to 150% from resistance type, Lightning HP +1,000)

Side/Top Hits
Now- 841.05 damage, 4 STK (1,335 damage, reduced to 42% from directional armour, increased to 150% from resistance type)
PTS- 1,050 damage, 4 STK (700 damage, increased to 150% from resistance type, Lightning HP +1,000)

Rear/Belly Hits
Now- 1,361.7 damage, 3 STK (1,335 damage, reduced to 68% from directional armour, increased to 150% from resistance type)
PTS- 2,100 damage, 2 STK (700 damage, increased to 200% from directional armour, increased to 150% from resistance type, Lightning HP +1,000)

So you see that in each case, after all is said and done the AV MANA turret does more damage to the Lightning despite the extra 1,000 HP the Lightning was supposed to get. With the new changes it now takes 1 less shot to kill a Lightning from the front and rear (subject to the resistance damage modifier), and only side hits remain the same.

This is a significant buff to infantry AV against Lightnings, more so when you consider that Lightning weapons are getting heavily nerfed against infantry. That's what this "combined arms initiative" was all about... another poorly disguised attempt to nerf vehicle AI while buffing infantry AV. Any intelligent person can run the changes for themselves and see what nonsense the Devs are up to.

Or it could become a remote-operated weapon. Setup somewhere, move away (maximum of say 5 meters - its a wire-operated system), and turn on the camera to pan and shoot. No more engineer on an aiming stake for snipers. Of course there is the problem of zero awareness of your own area and zero control of your own character until you "leave" the turret (which would also deconstruct all missiles still in flight). Which means that while you're trying to rain destruction on a column of tanks you'll never notice the HA walking up behind you with knife in hand until he shanks you. Or the medic with a x6 optic on their rifle that spotted your turret, used the known tether distance to figure out where you were hiding, got an angle, and put three neat holes in your head.