Provided you can get up there with a dropship.....oh wait you have a 2 hit instapop-dropship gun with range that is "LOLthewholemap"

Reasons FG is OP:

Have you ever wanted a weapon that has a powerful range and powerful against all types of entities even at close range or any range well the assault forge gun is your pick counter any infantry and vehicle.

easy to counter in CQC yea right now... with 1.4 not anymore. at range no not really, your just blowing smoking. btw in CQC the FG is a good first blow and if it doesn't kill you enemy they have lost over half is HP. it takes 3+ coordination to remove 1 heavy FG sniper and thats not OP? have you seen how high those towers are? TAC AR doesn't have that much range if the sat at the base and shot up. and LOL getting a DS above them it next to impossible and that is if you get the DS to the fight ceiling before getting shot down.

guess you have never used the FG to OHK in CQC then.

FG needs some shake during charge to prevent it's ability to counter snipe with pinpoint accuracy
Splash radius and splash damage needs to be reduced or removed altogether

Even at close range, eh? I take it you're also good at no-scoping with a sniper rifle.

Forge Gun on a tower without ladder access is OP against vehicles because you have to fly the Forge Gunner's favorite prey up to kill him. It's only a nuisance against infantry up there, however, and less effective than your average sniper.

And it isn't just Forge Guns that are good way up thar. They're just the ideal weapon for defending the position.

IMO, Forge Gun's OPness is and always has been a map design issue. There should be no remote, defendable positions with only one method of access anywhere on any map.

LOL no its not they even made it easier w/ better hit detection. i guess your horrible w/ the shotgun, plasma cannon and scambler pistol then as well and you need your bullet hoses *cough* HMG/smg *cough*

pssss i kill RDVs and w/e vehicle ppl call in their red zones.. nice juicey 150 wp RDVs.

and sniping... with what rendering range?

1. Heavies are not easily countered, it takes a minimum of 2 charge sniper shots to kill one (that's fully stacked with complex Dmg mods and level 5 proficiency).

2. Mostly true but put a advanced or complex armour repper and level up am capacity on your FG and your golden.

3.the forge gun is not 100% useless in CQC, besides any smart forge gunner would not go into CQC

4. Agreed, they can be taken out but not with a paper thin dropship. I'm a DS so I know how easy it is to wreck a DS

5. Same as 4.....what are you talking about "a TAC assault rifle can take out a tower forge gunner" no it can't!!!!! The TAC AR doesn't have that kind of range. All the towers that Forge gunners use require either a dropship or sniper, but neither can take out a heavy before he ducks back into cover.

The only thing I've ever seen reliably killed in CQC with Forge Guns is HMG Heavies. Pour a 40 on the curb for fattie on fattie violence...

[quote=Master Jaraiya]

compared to a heavy... how much bigger is the hitbox of a tank? how much does a properly fit tank cost? why are these 5 kilogram Fg doing more damage than 1 million isk 10 ton railguns? ever thought about that?

OK so I am going to try to reply to each of the points you made. Obviously you love the FG so I assume you are a bit biased in your original post.

1) you say heavies are easiest to kill. Well nobody runs around with a FG in normal assault range. They are almost always on a tower and in fact are the hardest to kill while they are up high because they can easily find cover from fire below. So this point you make is a bit irrelevant.

2) FGers require heavy squad support. This is true and also plays into a point I will make later which makes FGers extra hard to remove from towers.

3) CQC? I think I cover that in 1...

4) Tower FG. OK so this is where the FG dominates. You say, how many towers are in the game? I have news for you, there are a lot and most of them can cover and completely protect an objective with a FG. You can't just fly a derpship up there because, oh wait there's a forge gunner up there. Plus, the FGer has squad support which usually means at least one logi who has drop up links, nanohives, etc. So what your saying is, that it isn't hard to fly a dropship, that gets one hit by a forge gun, up to the tower, drop infantry and take down a heavy, a logi, probably a few other enemies, and the drop uplinks. Well again, I have news for you, it's pretty challenging.

5) solo FGers... Well again, obviously they won't be solo. This would be no problem.

I am not complaining about the FG just yet, just saying the points you make aren't that accurate or relevant to the true power of the FG.

The real issue with the forge gun is, once you have a well supported FGer on a tower it is near impossible to remove / takes a lot of effort while the rest of the blueberries are busy getting over run. Furthermore, this FGer can fully defend against vehicles and completely lock down one objective at the same time. This is OP, plain and simple. I like the FG, it's a lot of fun and I think it should be powerful, but it's splash damage and travel speed make it a beast at taking out infantry. To add more, the thing is extremely easy to aim. Anyone who says it isn't is either terrible or lying, period.

My solution is to reduce the splash and slightly decrease the projectile velocity. In other words increasing the skill needed to use it while keeping the same power.

ah i see why you say the FG isn't OP. lack of tactical use.


"I stay on the ground"

its like saying free orbitals isn't OP because you limit yourself to one a game when the game doesn't.

1. Heavies are not easily countered, it takes a minimum of 2 charge sniper shots to kill one (that's fully stacked with complex Dmg mods and level 5 proficiency).

I was responding to that ridiculous post.

I really dislike tower FG tactics. But I totally see why people do it.

I'm also against OHK weapons, especially in a "high health" shooter.

Your 47K isk infantry weapon does 126 less damage than my 900K proto rail gun. while having the same ROF.

Every single map in this game has at least one tower that is only accessible by dropships. At least one.

A tower forge gunner should never get taken out by means of a dropship, as long as he is paying attention or has a mic with someone else who can tell him when a dropship is being brought in. And even if the dropship can somehow not get noticed by the forge gunner, he's still got to negotiate swarms and railgun tanks and installations to even get off the ground, let alone reach the flight ceiling.

As you've said a few times now, you stay on the ground, so really, what do you know about tower forging? Have you ever taken out a tower forger? Have you ever been taken out as a tower forger? If it weren't for the tower forgers, there'd be many fewer complaints about forge guns. Granted the assault is OP compared to the other FG variants but there are better fixes to this than nerfing or even tweaking forge guns:

Fix bloody rooftops! How many roofs are designed as wide flat surfaces? Shouldn't they be peaked? Ok not always but you need to have something to stop people being able to sit atop a roof and see pretty much the entire map unhindered. Add a chest height wall to the edges of every rooftop. Simple; it's already done on the interior of the biomass complex roof.

TL:DR - redesign roofs so they're not such easy perches, don't provide easy cover or don't allow decent views of all or key areas of maps.

Hahahaha I love forge gunners who talk about tank drivers being scrubs and only wanting to be an invincible killing machine and don't want to use team work. Forge gun is very much the same, especially up in high places. I've seen a guy kill 3 dropships and a tank in under a minute with an officer forge.
Why should you be able to solo vehicles if you say vehicles shouldn't be able to solo infantry?

The main problem is they can defend an objective the entire game by themselves from out of assault range and are near impossible to remove. I don't have a problem with them otherwise. Yesterday for example I saw a guy go 22/0 with one on a tower. Smart players went around for other objectives and nearly won through cloning but essentially were at a ridiculous disadvantage. Now I know that is great strategy but don't say it was hard for the FGer or really fair (balanced). The FG isn't OP but tower FGing is, the splash is what makes defending the objective without actually having line of sight possible. You can keep some splash but why in the world should an AV weapon be able to splash two hit kill protos?

Problem is you can't counter them when they are 50 stories above your head and all you have is a militia sniper rifle.

I take issue with it take a FG less shots to take out the same tank. Another tank should always be the best option to take out a tank. Installations are perhaps a better comparison, a FG takes em out in two I'd need a damage mod with maxed turret skills and a proto rail to do the same. Though I'd have to confirm that don't bring out the proto rail unless another tank requires it.

Just witness a 50/6 Team Player guy with a forge gun in a domination. It cant be just skill, he camped on top of one of the 6 huge towers.

Say what you will but a score like that cant be only skills. Lets just say that in a sense I was happy he was on my side, but its a serious WTF moment...

Most forge gun I see now are campers making huge amount of kills, is that the real intended behaviour with this weapon ?

If only one thing was changed on the FG I'd have it be projectile speed. As it stands now, reticule turns red and they're dead. There has to be a draw back for such a relatively small weapon putting out that much power and maintaining said power over such a distance and that would be how fast you can send the projectile at the target. Not even plasma cannon slow but someplace between the PC speed and the current speed. Would take more skill to hit a DS but a tank would still be reasonably easy to hit unless they hit the fuel injectors. Hitting moving infantry from a tower would be harder as well.

Well yeah... the fg 5 to 4 times smaller than a railgun turret.
So yeah... I do expect it to be weaker in everyway.

If its a rail gun it fires a projectile, if not it's not a rail gun. And if it's not a projectile its a ball of energy. Guess what unless contained in a magnetic field that energy would quickly dissipate. So how do you fire a charge that powerful while maintaining it's magnetic field at such high velocity over such a long distance?

A rail gun fires and actual factual projectile, it uses successive magnetic fields to launch said projectile therefore no magnetic field to maintain. You claim the FG doesn't fire an actual projectile, therefore its not a rail gun at least not in the traditional sense. Either way if its not firing an actual projectile its firing a ball of energy which would require a magnetic field to keep the energy from dissipating.

This is a railgun

Here I bolded the key parts your reading comprehension fails to grasp. You are the only one that said rail guns don't fire projectiles. Yes its a game but a railgun is a railgun now and in the future. When I fire my rail turret I see an actual projectile leave the barrel. When you fire a FG I see a ball of energy. Because CCP didn't bother to define where the ammo comes from doesn't mean its not firing a physical projectile. The suspension of disbelief in this instances is where all the energy is coming from in both cases.

I am not claiming anything, its clear as day they fire different projectiles. If its the same technology the visual effect would be the same.

a RAIL GUN ON A TANK or installation!!!!!!

I am not claiming anything, its clear as day they fire different projectiles. If its the same technology the visual effect would be the same.

come on you know that is a bold face lie.

it is not the same technology, it is similar technology

btw

"This article needs additional citations for verification" that page has not been verified and its been up over 5 years.... that's a long while for it not to be verified... why because its wrong.

i would but i don't feel like talking to donkeys that once they are confronted go into a spasm yelling they are right when they can't see that everything they use just goes to prove them wrong.

^

Rail Guns use Rails, in exactly the same manner as magnetically driven trains.

Sequential powering up of individual sections along the rail, driving the projectile along by magnetic force.

Real World Rail Guns have been used to fire projectiles incredible distances, accuracy and distance are both gained by increasing the length of the Rails.

EvE's rail guns are long distance weapons and iirc use containment fields: see below


from what i understand, EvE's blaster technology operates under similar conditions, but replaces the solid projectile with magnetically bound plasma, ejecting the plasma from the weapon at great speads, but due to the nature of the plasma and the methods used to give the round cohesion, this method is only good over shorter ranges.

The Blaster is a short range weapon.



no idea what this thread is about btw.. just thought i'd chime in with unwanted and probably erroneous factoids.

edit:
oh wait i do know what this discussion is about : /...


hey erm arent forge guns based off of blasters? :P hence the short barrel size....

You sound a lot like the old TAR users saying the gun was fine.

Assault Forge Gun makes all your arguments invalid. I like the bad at CQC one, lol. The fast charge time is almost like using a mass driver. Spam those shots and I have the "balls" to tell you that this thing is better at CQC than the HMG.

Heavy dropsuit IS the hardest suit to kill at a distance, snipers don't do **** to them, that's why tower guy stays there whole match.

Stop saying Forge Gun is fine ffs, it's not.

-XOXO

Wouldn't it be possible, in theory, that the Forge Gun uses solid rounds (or gas filled containers) for ammunition but the process of charging and firing 'plasmafies' the round i.e: turns a solid (or gas) object into a ball of magnetically bound plasma? That would account for the short range on FG rounds compared to other Rail tech weapins, since the plasma would dissipate as the field breaks down.

Either that or the glow is the magnetic field around the round, but that doesn't really explain why a much larger Rail weapon firing solid rounds has a much shorter range than a Sniper Rifle, when the description implies it would hit at least as far.

they all appear to be different weapon systems to me. The PC and current AR are obviously blasters (to me), and the sniper is described as a rail.
The heat discharge and "stabilizing the magnetic field" should be indicators that the FG is not a rail gun however... rail guns only have active magnetic fields during the firing sequence, and any heat is minimal compared to most weapon systems. I'm happy to be wrong as i have nothing invested outside of curiosity.
TLDR:
rail guns use rails.
compressing a magnetic charge to fling a projectile is not rail technology.

Not a blaster, in the slightest, This is not the most difficult concept to grasp, the question is entirely based on the nature of the ammunition

Blasters and Rails are hybrid weapons, now why are they both hybrid.

1) Blasters are hybrid because they have physical hallow shells which contain plasma, thus they primarily do thermal damage

2) Rails (which Eve also conflates with coil guns) are weapons that shoot solid slugs at really high speeds, hence rail weapons primarily do kinetic damage

The Forge gun shoots solid shells,

Also the devs shouldn't have to do double work because you guys can't do a little bit of researching, they already addressed the issue of classifying weapons based on weapon systems, just read the dev blogs

http://dust514.com/news/blog/2013/07/weapon-ranges-in-uprising-1.2-and-beyond/

Edit:

I wanted to include this

"The power supply must be able to deliver large currents, sustained and controlled over a useful amount of time. The most important gauge of power supply effectiveness is the energy it can deliver. As of December 2010, the greatest known energy used to propel a projectile from a railgun was 33 megajoules.[10] The most common forms of power supplies used in railguns are capacitors and compulsators which are slowly charged from other continuous energy sources.
The rails need to withstand enormous repulsive forces during shooting, and these forces will tend to push them apart and away from the projectile. As rail/projectile clearances increase, arcing develops, which causes rapid vaporization and extensive damage to the rail surfaces and the insulator surfaces. This limited some early research railguns to one shot per service interval.
The inductance and resistance of the rails and power supply limit the efficiency of a railgun design. Currently different rail shapes and railgun configurations are being tested, most notably by the United States Navy, the Institute for Advanced Technology, and BAE Systems."

Reasons why it is.... Scrub

---------> https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1226286#post1226286 <--------

...Railgun...
Definition: Electromagnetic Projectile Launcher.
Meaning: It has a projectile (aka an object it launches)

A GEK can kill everything dude, lol.

If snipers are your worst enemies then YOU are doing it wrong.

-XOXO