|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1980
   |
Posted - 2013.08.23 22:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:Good because the Assault and Breach MD are working as intended.
The Boundless Assault is ridiculous.
6.6m, 74 Damage.
With the passive skills you've got +8m.
Explosive weaponry need to do less damage the further away from the blast you are. |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1980
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 22:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ludvig Enraga wrote:oh jeez. now we cry even about melee? is it a troll craft thread or a real discussion?
There is a melee 'Exploit'.
Where you can deal incredible amounts of damage in a short amount of time.
Basically it gets rid of the cooldown between melee attacks and if stacking blues you can get over 400 Damage per punch. |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1981
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 22:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:Knight Soiaire wrote:Justin Tymes wrote:Good because the Assault and Breach MD are working as intended. The Boundless Assault is ridiculous. 6.6m, 74 Damage. With the passive skills you've got +8m. Explosive weaponry need to do less damage the further away from the blast you are. 8.25, and they do 80 or so splash per shot, 640 or so not factoring resistances per clip, they are terrible in CQC and is great at being a suppression weapon especially with Infantry support. It's working as intended, the splash damage is low enough already. Aiming is being fixed and AR users get aim assist with it, so there is no excuse anymore.
All explosive weaponry should get a damage falloff the further away from the blast zone you are.
It only makes sence, and perhaps we could reward players for hitting closer to the target by giving them increased damage.
But 8.25m, 80 Damage for not even hitting your target and 104 - 106 Vs Armour. Is ridiculous. |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1981
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 22:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
hooc order wrote:ZDub 303 wrote:hooc order wrote:Melee glitch needs to be explained.
it is just that you think melee does too much damage? If so then it is not a glitch....you can say you think it is OP but cannot claim it is a glitch.
Sota claimed people were using melee at 50 times per second....i fail to see how anyone doing that would not be at zero stamina within 0.2 seconds.
Explain in blinding detail what is glitchy about melee....if you cannot then stop calling it a glitch or an exploit. More like 3-4 times per second, but you can still ahit about 1300 dps with Melee mods on and 2 complex cardiac regulators. It evaporates anything instantly. A TAC in it hayday could evaporate anything instantly....lavs still can and i think some turrets at close range and spot on targeted do as well. Tanks maybe as well. This i think is more of a claim for OP status....not an exploit and/or glitch. Rule of thumb: Invisibility is an exploit TAC damage back in the day was not. Quote:
Basically it gets rid of the cooldown between melee attacks and if stacking blues you can get over 400 Damage per punch.
That is not an exploit. Also why are you guys on the exploint kick? Invisibility is a real exploit and CCP has done crap to fix it. TAC was claimed to be OP and CCP nerfed it. Why not call it OP? Obviously the OP claim has better traction in changing the game then calling something an exploit.
It is an exploit.
No matter how you put it.
CCP intended for there to be a cooldown on melee, and players are exploiting a glitch that allows you to bypass it.
Tell me how players abusing invisibility is any different? |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1982
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 22:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:Knight Soiaire wrote:Justin Tymes wrote:Knight Soiaire wrote:Justin Tymes wrote:Good because the Assault and Breach MD are working as intended. The Boundless Assault is ridiculous. 6.6m, 74 Damage. With the passive skills you've got +8m. Explosive weaponry need to do less damage the further away from the blast you are. 8.25, and they do 80 or so splash per shot, 640 or so not factoring resistances per clip, they are terrible in CQC and is great at being a suppression weapon especially with Infantry support. It's working as intended, the splash damage is low enough already. Aiming is being fixed and AR users get aim assist with it, so there is no excuse anymore. All explosive weaponry should get a damage falloff the further away from the blast zone you are. It only makes sence, and perhaps we could reward players for hitting closer to the target by giving them increased damage. But 8.25m, 80 Damage for not even hitting your target and 104 - 106 Vs Armour. Is ridiculous. Catch 22, Assault sucks inside 10 meters but you need to be there to get the most out of Assault MD? That goes against the purpose of the weapon. 80 damage per shot is practical, what do you want it 40 per shot so you can just stand there tanking them? You won't get anyone to stop what they are doing and move immediately if you lower the damage, that is what suppression is for. Explosion vs armor bug has already been pointed out, 96 to armor is fine, plus Armor is getting a boost anyway. Also doing 64 per shot to shields unless you carry a flux, but that requires you to be in CQC, which the Assault sucks in.
I dont wont it to do 40 Per shot.
I just dont want it to do 80 at the very edge of the blast.
And I'm not saying that it should do more damage in CQC, I'm saying it should do more damage if the projectile lands at the feet of the enemy. |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1982
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:I'm sorry man... people defending the FoTM is nothing new here. We saw it with Tact. AR and all the other stuff that got nerfed.
But feel free to get your opinion across.
Wouldn't CCP not deciding to do anything to Breach or Assault suggest that it is just QQ and not OP? We've been over this before, the majority of the community don't believe at least the Assault or Breach are OP, and TBH the QQ is just getting old. I have yet to hear anyone who has used all 3 variants lay out why they all are OP, nothing except OMG SPLASH TOO WIDE DAMAGE TOO MUCH without taking account each variant outside of their optimal.
Breach is okay, why wouldn't it be?
The regular is a bit ridiculous.
Assault MD splash radius is too much for 80 Damage.
I'm willing to see how things will go once hit detection is fixed, I am.
But if the spam doesn't stop, if they're still performing how they are now, they need a splash damage falloff.
I'm not asking for a stats nerf, I'm saying that if I'm standing at the edge of the blast, I should not recieve the same amount of damage as I would recieve if I was standing where the projectile landed.
It only makes sense, its how explosives should work. |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1982
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ludvig Enraga wrote:Another Heavy SOB wrote:Ludvig Enraga wrote:oh jeez. now we cry even about melee? is it a troll craft thread or a real discussion? Hey ******, it's not the melee itself it's the glitched mechanic being exploited. If you don't yet know please actually read the thread, more specifically my post on the previous page. Ah, yeah. You are that guy that complained about having his S handed to him in CQC by players who specialize in !melee. Dunno... invest in lube, maybe you would not be crying as much...
Ok, next time you're in a match.
Tap R3 and L3 while walking forward.
If on keyboard, walking forward, but with Shift and Q.
Now imagine someone stacking, green, blue and red biotics, hitting for over 400 Damage.
My problem doesn't lie with its damage, if someone has the balls to spec into melee they should be able to achieve that damage. But they should not be able to hit that quickly. |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1982
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:Knight Soiaire wrote:Justin Tymes wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:I'm sorry man... people defending the FoTM is nothing new here. We saw it with Tact. AR and all the other stuff that got nerfed.
But feel free to get your opinion across.
Wouldn't CCP not deciding to do anything to Breach or Assault suggest that it is just QQ and not OP? We've been over this before, the majority of the community don't believe at least the Assault or Breach are OP, and TBH the QQ is just getting old. I have yet to hear anyone who has used all 3 variants lay out why they all are OP, nothing except OMG SPLASH TOO WIDE DAMAGE TOO MUCH without taking account each variant outside of their optimal. Breach is okay, why wouldn't it be? The regular is a bit ridiculous. Assault MD splash radius is too much for 80 Damage. I'm willing to see how things will go once hit detection is fixed, I am. But if the spam doesn't stop, if they're still performing how they are now, they need a splash damage falloff. I'm not asking for a stats nerf, I'm saying that if I'm standing at the edge of the blast, I should not recieve the same amount of damage as I would recieve if I was standing where the projectile landed. It only makes sense, its how explosives should work. What would you suggest Lowering the splash down to? Pre 1.2 I could get the Boundless Assault to work(the only viable MD at the time), but ADV Assault was underwhelming as far as damage and splash goes, and this is before the 1.4 patch that's about to take effect in a week. And I can guarantee you if we bring the MD back to Pre 1.2 levels, there will still be people crying about the MD, that's just the nature of the weapon.
I'm not suggesting lowering the splash, with a steady damage of 80, the splash is ridiculous, but say if I only recieved half or a quarter of the damage if I was standing at the edge of the blast then it'd be fine.
I'm not asking to nerf explosive weaponry, I'm asking for them to act more like explosives |
Knight Soiaire
Better Hide R Die
1982
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Justin Tymes wrote:
Which is actually fine by me, but you do realize they would have to increase the MD damage to compensate for the fall out, or the MD would be useless as a suppression weapon?
I know.
As long as they act like explosives, and are still effective I dont have a problem with it. |
|
|
| |
|