That's good news, and thanks for your reply earlier. As for what I meant by GÇ£all situationsGÇ¥ I mean pretty much how you explained it. The mass driver simply does too well in situations it is not supposed to be in and considering there is no damage falloff, an MD can kill someone very easily at range with much less accuracy than is required from the AR, SCR or sniper rifle.

As for knowing about the use of a mass driver, my corp mate specced into them way back and I asked if he would pick it up again. He constantly did well with it, watching people just jump ten feet in the air was funny but it was just cheap and too easy. He was rounding corners and taking guys out in CQC no problem and I've only seen him die to his own MD twice. We stopped using it because it just wasn't as fun or tactical as we both like.

Now for that 800 damage, it seems like that is exactly what must have occured, the guy got behind me for a split second and even though the explosion appeared at my feet when I was facing the guy, the various issue with the game compounded together in what ultimately was a very lucky shot for the guy.

I still think that the idea stated in the OP will keep the MD dangerous, but relegate it solely to the use of area denial, sitting behind the frontline being like a mortar. You wouldn't put infantry behind a mortar emplacement would you?

Edit: It should be up to the skill of the MD user to take out enemies at range before they reach the null range where charges don't detonate as opposed to what we have currently which is that MD's can be used at any range below sniper.

Well unfortunately, a simple dislike of the idea isn't really going to do anything is it. The fact of the matter is that the MD is being used too frequently in close quarters engagements and is being used as an assault weapon but barely being used as an area denial weapon. This change would fix that problem rather neatly without nerfing the mass driver into oblivion. Right now the MD is taking the role of shotgun, assault rifle and itself, to which there is very little counter other than another mass driver or sniper rifle.

That's not to say that you can't kill an MD user at all with only these weapons, but in CQC I should not be losing to what essentially boils down to grenade spam.

Except that the shotgun requires the shot to be 100% on target...

Two notes before a more substanentive response later.

#1 - If anyone has posted a response to my "the suggestion in the OP can't actually be mechanically viable" points I have yet to see it, can someone respond to this aspect or point me to a direct response?

#2 - Tonight I killed a Prototype Cal Logi with a Prototype Mass Driver in CQC using my 100% BPO fitting, and I did so with 40% shields remaining at the end of the battle. I will admit this is a bit above the arc of my average but it's not strikingly unusual... in the same game in the same suit I also caused 4 proto suited MD users to suicide when fighting me in low-mid/CQC ranges, only two of which managed to take me with them.

End of match tally, my free suit deaths 2, proto MD+Proto suit kills 5. I'll keep an eye on my MD deaths and kills in the future but so far my 'Exile' AR + BPO fit laughs in the face of proto MDs+proto suits.

0.02 ISK
Cross

He's saying he killed proto MD users with his ****-fit and what may have been an Exile.

The point is it is not the same since 1.1, because when the fixed the issue with splash damage not being properly dispersed due to small obstacles the weapon became considerably more effective, especially at close range. No explosive grenade launcher is suppose to be used as a CQC weapon. That is ludicrous.

I see where this QQ is going with the Mass Driver, and I think that a reduction in splash or direct explosive damage will ruin its effectiveness as an area denial weapon. I don't want that because I feel it is a capability that is needed in the game. Implementation of a minimum arming distance does not limit that capability. It only prevents players from spamming explosive projectiles in close quarters. A role that was probably never intended for the Mass Driver.

Anyone who is complaining about not being able to use the Mass Driver in close quarters sounds like a fool. It is a support weapon with a specific role in battle. You should be carrying a sidearm to compensate for the weapon's lack of close quarters capability, just like Snipers, Laser Riflemen and A/V Gunners do. If you are Logistics (like me) then you should be moving with another player that can provide you close quarters support....just like you are providing them with area suppression support.

You know the weapon mechanics are broken when you see Squads of players from the same team using a Mass Driver. Lightbulb moment.

So this is not really a nerf...it is just common sense. There is no real-world grenade launcher out there that does not implement minimum arming distance for the projectile. Just like the primary weapon used by most soldiers of every army is some type of assault rifle, which will always make it the most predominant weapon in warfare.

Why are so many counters to this proposal centered around the use of the Assault Rifle...THAT is something that has absolutely nothing to do with how the Mass Driver should operate. Assault Rifles are going to always be the predominate weapon, not because they are OP but because that is how Infantry Combat works. Pretty sure it was the weapon of choice in my Infantry Line Company.

And I love how people keep calling this a nerf, which it's not. This change would have no impact on splash damage or direct damage. It just eliminates a mechanic that makes absolutely no sense in Infantry Combat...the use of Explosive Projectiles in close quarters.

Anyone who continues to argue that should continue to be allowed sounds like a fool.

First of all a Grenade Launcher is not a CQB weapon...no matter how you want to slice it...it was never designed to be THAT. It doesn't matter if we are immortal mercenaries or not. Such a weapon makes no sense in any combat situation. A Grenade Launcher is an area denial weapon, not a point weapon. So if an enemy is within a few meters of you, you are no longer in an 'area denial' situation...you are in a direct engagement with a point target and a grenade is not the ideal solution to that problem.

The other weapons you mention in your feeble argument are point target weapons and more to the point...they are weapons that do not deal Explosive Damage. Laser Rifles are ineffective at close range since damage output is considerably less at short distance. Using a Sniper Rifle at close range is equally ineffective based on slow ADS and poor hip-fire characteristics.

And the suggestion does nothing to say that you cannot fire the weapon at close range....it just says that it will not deal explosive damage at close range. Meaning you have to hit your target directly and the impact of the projectile will deal damage...not an explosion. So again your point is moot.

As for the few variants, they can simply adjust the minimum arming distance for each style based on the characteristics of the projectile it uses.

I completely agree with the OP it would make sense that a hrenadr launcher of this sort would have some sort of safety protocol in order to protect the user. Besides even if people get too close you can stoll kill them with a direct shot. And if your a logi yku shouldn't need to be in the front just behind your squad acting as support and area of denial.