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

The changes would do nothing but nerf the other variants. The changes you purposed would completely take away any reason to use the Breach MD over a shotgun, which is superior in almost every way RIGHT NOW. You will completely take away the Assault's ability to kill anything within 10 meters before you die yourself, which it is already struggling to do RIGHT NOW.

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

Again its been the same since 1.1. We are in 1.3 nobody complained now they complain about it because more people use it now? That's pathetic. It's fine where it is. It has risk using it in cqc. You want to remove that and make have to rely on a side arm close up? ....ha yet the assault rifle can hip fire super good?

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.

Which MD are they using? How frequent is this happening? Full squads are using ARs alot more than MDs, nerf them too? All you're doing is just making broad assumptions, and screaming nerf everything based on those assumptions. All you are doing is nerfing 2 variants already working as intended(well 1 is UP) because of 1 variant that is debatably working as intended. Carrying a side-arm patches up every weapon in the game, traveling along with a squad patches up every weapon in the game, this has absolutely nothing to do with the MD and how it should operate.

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.

Idea from RydogV in another mass driver *****-a-thon thread:



Basically the MD round won't "explode" within the minimum distance and will only deal direct damage to someone if the round hits them. Seems like an idea that should have been in the game already.

I'd say the minimum distance should be 5 meters since that's the highest blast radius of the weapon but perhaps it could be even further. What do you all think?

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.

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.

You've yet to explain why such a change is needed for the variants that are already working as intended. All of this again is based on one variant. Why not make it so that Laser or Sniper Rifles are unable to fire at enemies within 5-10 meters? It makes no sense to nerf a weapon that way, all that is needed is splash being detected on Standard like the Assault in CQC. There situational CQC weapon. Go further and swap the RoF of the Standard and Breach and you have balanced weapon.

I can't support this idea any more. Nothing confuses me more than getting killed by a MD at < 5m and not having the other guy die as well. A minimum arming distance would still reward accuracy in CQC ranges while reducing the noob-tube grief surrounding the weapon.

And just for the record...I love the concept of a Mass Driver as an area suppression system. I think it is a viable and valuable resource on the battlefield....which is why I am 100% AGAINST the direct and splash damage being lowered in any way. To me that ruins the weapon.

But I refuse to use the weapon with the current physical mechanics...because in a word they are: DUMB

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.

I mentioned this earlier and of course it got ignored: What if they revert the grenade physics back to Chromosone? Slower velocity and a more drastic falloff would force people to stop trying to use it in CQC.

I suggested these options in other threads when the QQ for Mass Drivers began. They were no more welcomed than this idea. After discussing it with other Corp members the idea of minimum arming distance seemed to make more sense. Personally, I think it's the right solution for this particular weapon and will have less impact on it's use by more players. Like I said...I don't want the weapon to disappear from the battlefield, I just want it to make sense.

This is not a proper method for assessing balance. By that reasoning the entire AR line is #1 on the chopping block and the militia/standard gear of all kinds is in line for a nerf much more than the higher meta varations.

Seeing a specific weapon, or even more so weapon sub-type, commonly on the field can certainly call enough attention to be worth testing but it is not, in and of itself, a specific indication of any mechanical flaw with the weapon in question.


"Real world" is an incredibly improper metric to advise game balance. Combat and weapons are NOT balanced in the real world and being as how balance is vital to robust, enjoyable, game play that pushes "real world" motivations into the category of role play, i.e. "fine for amusement bad for mechanics".

Further, and I've raised this point within the thread before, even if we look at "real world" methods the world in question must be the universe of New Eden not 2013 Earth. Immortal Clones who will willingly step through blackhole portals which are excruciating and cause cancer won't care at all if they blow themselves and their 7k ISK fitting to pieces so long as they take 40k+ enemy assets with them. That immortal merc is going to respawn in a new clone on the same battlefield with a smirk under his/her helmet and a higher payday waiting at the end of the battle. There is no logical lore (aka "real world) reason for the weaponry of clone soldiers to contain safeties.... in fact if it did we wouldn't have weapons with overheat (unless the presumption is that overheat somehow [i]is] the safety and highly advance space faring cultures just can't be bothered to do one right... in which case we're back to the concept of having none at all).

Lastly, call it what you will, any change to the mechanics of a piece of gear which makes it less effective is a nerf, and change which makes it more effective is a buff. The exception to this is that some vicarious effects resulting from larger changes such as bug fixes are just that, fixes to mechanics that are not working as intended.

Examples:
Fixing the hit detection is not a nerf or buff to any weapon/armor but it may expose current imbalances which need addressed.
Fine tuning the efficiency profile for explosive weapons most certainly is a nerf to all of them but it is a nerf that is called for to refine/improve overall game balance.


Third point at the risk of repeating myself, I still haven't seen an explanation of how any system like the one suggested in the OP could even theoretically be implemented and function. How would it work "under the hood" within the mechanics of the game? I'm not saying it's impossible, I don't know all the ins and outs of the engine enough to say that, but I am saying based on what I do understand such a mechanic simply does not seem viable, from a purely functional perspective leaving questions of game balance completely aside.

0.02 ISK
Cross

The reference to a whole Squad of Mass Driver users was noted to show how a weapon has moved outside its intended role. Assault Rifles are general purpose weapons that one would expect to see predominate in any Squad.

And I am not buying any argument that tries to place diversity above sensible mechanics. Sorry...I do not value diversity as much as others. Call it personal preference. I realize that bringing real world into game world is not always the best way to make a point. Real world, game world...whatever....classifying a Grenade Launcher as a CQB weapon makes zero sense.

As for 'under the hood'. Most shooters I have ever played made launched grenades non-explosive at close range. So I am pretty sure it will not take exceptional development skill to make it work.

In the real world, there aren't respawns and grenade launchers can OHK you.

The reference to a whole Squad of Mass Driver users was noted to show how a weapon has moved outside its intended role. Assault Rifles are general purpose weapons that one would expect to see predominate in any Squad.

And I am not buying any argument that tries to place diversity above sensible mechanics. Sorry...I do not value diversity as much as others. Call it personal preference. I realize that bringing real world into game world is not always the best way to make a point. Real world, game world...whatever....classifying a Grenade Launcher as a CQB weapon makes zero sense.

As for 'under the hood'. Most shooters I have ever played made launched grenades non-explosive at close range. So I am pretty sure it will not take exceptional development skill to make it work.

The reference to a whole Squad of Mass Driver users

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.

Why aren't my Grenades OTKing Infantry with a 15m splash at the least? Stop trying to bring real-world mechanics to a futuristic videogame. CCP designed MDs this way. To say that they should be nerfed because it doesn't match its Real-world counterpart exactly, despite what it does to the game's design is stupid. As of right now 2 variants are not OP, one is being debated, and there is currently no reason to widespread nerf the MD in-game.

The Assault is NOT a CQC weapon it is designed to be a support weapon, if you use it in CQC you will most likely die. Working as intended.

The Breach IS a CQC weapon despite its real-world counterpart not being one, because CCP designed the Breach to be this way. Working as Intended.

The Freedom needs splash detection fixed, and MAYBE a RoF nerf to make Breach more viable. That's it.

Quick additional on this one, were you aware that there is an in game chat devoted specifically to gathering MD users to play together in full squads (or as close as their able based on who's currently logged in) ?

There is indeed such a chat and it was formed in response to the heavy nerf of the MD CCP applied during the transition from Chrome to Uprising as a method of trying to find ways that the MD could still be fun and effective despite it's status (at that point) as essentially a poor joke. Since that time CCP has fixed some client/latency issues which were negatively impacting the MD and the overall MD line is much more effective now, but the channel remains active.

This is worth noting because there is a specific in game precedence for squads of MD to deploy together because the weapon is underpowered (remember this balance assessment was from a prior patch) so presuming that just because a whole squad deployed with it that somehow proves the weapon is OP, is demonstrably inaccurate.

~Cross