DUST Search - [request] Mass Driver Minimum Arming Distance

FLAYLOCK Steve wrote:

Skihids wrote:

Paran Tadec wrote:

CCP Logibro wrote:

If the safety was implemented, what do you think of the idea that a direct hit would still do damage but not explode if within the minimum arming distance?

This is dumb, all it will do is prevent MD users from blowing themselves up.

It would act as a safety for the many times a blind blueberry walks in front of my launcher and takes one in the back of the head. It would also help guard against the times I'm backpedaling while shooting and accidentally clip a corner and hurt myself.

I suppose it would also help train new users to fire behind rushing opponents to kill them without getting hurt too.

In fact the more I think about it the more I like the idea.

CCP safety the round to go off just beyond the effective splash radius, that will make me happy and it seems it will please the MD haters too. Win-win!

You really don't see how bad this can hurt us. Do me a favor, take out the flaylock. Use the flaylock and try to kill and see how hard it will be. Why? The radius was reduced too much so now it requires a direct hit kill which with this messed up system it wouldn't do shyt. So instead of people just staying away from you (smart ones), they will just rush you. You would have to try to get a direct hit with a grenade which is really dumb. Or change to your side arm vs a main weapons. Try taking out douv assault rifle with a side arm lawl. And if you're a logi, you're fked.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1853	Posted - 2013.08.11 05:01:00 - [1] - Quote Are we seriously considering putting a safety measure on a clone weapon?!? The same clones that we push though painful worm holes guaranteed to kill them in short order? Gosh, maybe we should implement safety measures on grenades too. I mean, we can cook nades until they go off in our hands! We shouldn't be able to release the spoon until we throw it, and it wouldn't arm until it was far enough away from us. And then we could put foam on all the sharp corners in our merc quarters...
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1854	Posted - 2013.08.11 14:04:00 - [2] - Quote Paran Tadec wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: If the safety was implemented, what do you think of the idea that a direct hit would still do damage but not explode if within the minimum arming distance? This is dumb, all it will do is prevent MD users from blowing themselves up. It would act as a safety for the many times a blind blueberry walks in front of my launcher and takes one in the back of the head. It would also help guard against the times I'm backpedaling while shooting and accidentally clip a corner and hurt myself. I suppose it would also help train new users to fire behind rushing opponents to kill them without getting hurt too. In fact the more I think about it the more I like the idea. CCP safety the round to go off just beyond the effective splash radius, that will make me happy and it seems it will please the MD haters too. Win-win!
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1861	Posted - 2013.08.12 02:14:00 - [3] - Quote FLAYLOCK Steve wrote: Skihids wrote: Paran Tadec wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: If the safety was implemented, what do you think of the idea that a direct hit would still do damage but not explode if within the minimum arming distance? This is dumb, all it will do is prevent MD users from blowing themselves up. It would act as a safety for the many times a blind blueberry walks in front of my launcher and takes one in the back of the head. It would also help guard against the times I'm backpedaling while shooting and accidentally clip a corner and hurt myself. I suppose it would also help train new users to fire behind rushing opponents to kill them without getting hurt too. In fact the more I think about it the more I like the idea. CCP safety the round to go off just beyond the effective splash radius, that will make me happy and it seems it will please the MD haters too. Win-win! You really don't see how bad this can hurt us. Do me a favor, take out the flaylock. Use the flaylock and try to kill and see how hard it will be. Why? The radius was reduced too much so now it requires a direct hit kill which with this messed up system it wouldn't do shyt. So instead of people just staying away from you (smart ones), they will just rush you. You would have to try to get a direct hit with a grenade which is really dumb. Or change to your side arm vs a main weapons. Try taking out douv assault rifle with a side arm lawl. And if you're a logi, you're fked. No, you just aim behind the rushing fool. The splash still catches him. Now keep in mind I'm only accepting a safety equaling the splash radius, so that's a very short distance. Safety ranges are designed to protect be user, not the target so it needn't be any greater than the splash radius. The upshot is completely eliminating sef inflicted injuries and the downside is just needing to fire to the do side and behind a melee opponent.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1862	Posted - 2013.08.12 04:21:00 - [4] - Quote "Too good in CQC" generally means "I can't dance with it like I can an AR". Now that holds true for any splash weapon so the argument really boils down to "Nerf the **** out of it until my AR is better than it in CQC". That is followed by any number of "minor adjustments" that are designed to ompletely neuter the the weapon.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 1873	Posted - 2013.08.14 03:53:00 - [5] - Quote The CQC he was showing would be outside any safety arming distance as he wasn't taking any splash himself so it wouldn't ate any difference. But really, the whole concept of putting safety features on clone weapons is laughable lore wise. We commit suicide rather than take a shower, so why decrease our combat effectiveness?