Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1251
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Alrighty everyone, here's an idea I've been mulling over in the wake of the 1.7 changes, would love to hear what everyone thinks. Note that this is just my personal suggestion, I am not speaking for "The CPM" here (at least not yet, we'll see how popular the notion is.) Also - if this has been proposed before, apologies and I'd love to be redirected to the proper thread for bumping.
The idea is simple, though there are a few ways to implement this. Feel free to suggest your own. Essentially I see an opportunity here for the Flaylock to shine again, and to honor all the SP investment players have made into a now overly-nerfed weapon. Infantry are badly in need of defense against enemy armor in the wake of the vehicle buffs, and having a truly effective sidearm that can be used to dispatch vehicles would fill a badly needed balance role.
To accomplish this, I envision the following:
1.) Buff direct damage substantially.
2.) Nerf projectile speed, or introduce more of an arc similar to the Plasma Cannon, or whatever combination of usability adjustments are needed to make the weapon damn near impossible to hit a moving person with.
3.) Lower splash even further, or eliminate completely. This thing needs to ONLY damage with a direct impact - easily achievable against large targets, but not against small moving ones.
4.) Investigate signature radius-based damage scaling as a way to allow high damage against vehicles while limiting effectiveness against infantry.
That's about it. In all honestly, I don't see why a simple set of tweaks can't salvage the Flaylock into a kickass anti-vehicle sidarm. This would be a cool way to buff the Assault class in general, which would suddenly have a tool available that Logistics lack, and enable some stronger A/V fits when combined with swarms and AV grenades (for squads with plenty of infantry protection nearby).
Thoughts? Neat idea? Am I crazy? Would love to hear what you all think. |
Cat Merc
Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN.
4751
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
I approve of this. I wanted an AV sidearm for a while, so that I'm not completely defenceless when the enemy brings 7 tanks and they are trying to push with infantry
Shield regeneration bonus for Gallente Assault is about as useful as Sharpshooter for Nova Knives.
Tuna > Tacos
|
Aeon Amadi
A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. Renegade Alliance
4164
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote:Alrighty everyone, here's an idea I've been mulling over in the wake of the 1.7 changes, would love to hear what everyone thinks. Note that this is just my personal suggestion, I am not speaking for "The CPM" here (at least not yet, we'll see how popular the notion is.) Also - if this has been proposed before, apologies and I'd love to be redirected to the proper thread for bumping.
The idea is simple, though there are a few ways to implement this. Feel free to suggest your own. Essentially I see an opportunity here for the Flaylock to shine again, and to honor all the SP investment players have made into a now overly-nerfed weapon. Infantry are badly in need of defense against enemy armor in the wake of the vehicle buffs, and having a truly effective sidearm that can be used to dispatch vehicles would fill a badly needed balance role.
To accomplish this, I envision the following:
1.) Buff direct damage substantially.
2.) Nerf projectile speed, or introduce more of an arc similar to the Plasma Cannon, or whatever combination of usability adjustments are needed to make the weapon damn near impossible to hit a moving person with.
3.) Lower splash even further, or eliminate completely. This thing needs to ONLY damage with a direct impact - easily achievable against large targets, but not against small moving ones.
4.) Investigate signature radius-based damage scaling as a way to allow high damage against vehicles while limiting effectiveness against infantry.
That's about it. In all honestly, I don't see why a simple set of tweaks can't salvage the Flaylock into a kickass anti-vehicle sidarm. This would be a cool way to buff the Assault class in general, which would suddenly have a tool available that Logistics lack, and enable some stronger A/V fits when combined with swarms and AV grenades (for squads with plenty of infantry protection nearby).
Thoughts? Neat idea? Am I crazy? Would love to hear what you all think.
I'm adverse to this solely because a high direct damage never stopped anyone from making an AV weapon into an anti-infantry weapon (see Forge Gun/Plasma Cannon). Nerfing the projectile speed is also sort of a bad move in the AV department because that's what prevents the Plasma Cannon from being a good contender as is; enemy can just dodge the projectile.
Think we should focus on making current AV work well before trying to modulate other weapons to fill the role/gap.
However, the Flaylock does make a good contender against dropships because of how badly it "pushes" the dropship. Has a lot of power behind it and someone dedicated enough can make a dropship crash with them.
forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=
(Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030
(Lag Hunt) 1570201
|
Cosgar
ParagonX
8818
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Make the standard anti-infantry with the capacity for light AV and the breach the opposite. I wouldn't screw with trajectory outside of increasing velocity slightly. It seems a bit off since 1.4, but with hit detection fine tuning in1.6, its gotten much better. Poor thing still needs a buff at the cost of higher CPU than the other sidearms and a slower RoF. Before any scouts complain, the specialist can be the lower CPU variant at the cost of ammo, just like the shotgun.
I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"
|
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1251
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cosgar wrote:Make the standard anti-infantry with the capacity for light AV and the breach the opposite.
I'd be down with something in between like this, too. I don't really share Aeon's fear about blending the two, what interests me the most is pushing weapons like the Flaylock (or even possibly the breach Mass Driver) into AV-capable damage ranges, while sacrificing whatever infantry effectiveness is needed to get them there.
|
Thurak1
Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
425
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
If you really want it to be just AV take away its dumbfire capability and make a VERY short lock on time and since its a sidearm give it a max range of 100 meters. |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1253
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thurak1 wrote:If you really want it to be just AV take away its dumbfire capability and make a VERY short lock on time and since its a sidearm give it a max range of 100 meters.
Pretty sure this is also a possibility. I believe the reason its called a "flaylock" to begin with is because it was initially designed with a lock-on function, which was later deemed (rightfully) OP.
Mini-swarm Flaylock could definitely work, if not for it being a little boring in the way it imitates the other's functionality. |
Spectral Clone
Dust2Dust. Top Men.
933
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
I think this might be the solution to tank spam. Make scouts, assaults and heavies be able to carry both a anti infantry weapon and a AV sidearm!
Logis have to chose between AV or infantry weapon.
Commandos can still carry a swarm + assault rifle, and they will do the AV better than a sidearm in that case.
Doesnt matter in Dust 514: PC. FW Standing. Tanking Type. Other mods than DMG or HP.
Does matter in Dust 514: Rifles.
|
TheEnd762
SVER True Blood Public Disorder.
250
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aside from adding an arc/lowering the speed, yes. Would be nice to have something to finish off a vehicle after my 3 proto AV grenades leave it with enough health to get away. -_-; |
DR FEB
DARKSTAR ARMY
118
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
meh
leader of the BLAH
|
|
Talos Alomar
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1824
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
I say only one thing needs to be changed - You know how whenever you point at a tank with your weapon you can see your effectiveness?
bring that up so that there is no modifier for the flaylock or mass driver. no actual boost in damage so their int
Try to kill it all you want CCP, I still <3 my laser.
|
Vrain Matari
ZionTCD Public Disorder.
1369
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 13:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote:Alrighty everyone, here's an idea I've been mulling over in the wake of the 1.7 changes, would love to hear what everyone thinks. Note that this is just my personal suggestion, I am not speaking for "The CPM" here (at least not yet, we'll see how popular the notion is.) Also - if this has been proposed before, apologies and I'd love to be redirected to the proper thread for bumping.
The idea is simple, though there are a few ways to implement this. Feel free to suggest your own. Essentially I see an opportunity here for the Flaylock to shine again, and to honor all the SP investment players have made into a now overly-nerfed weapon. Infantry are badly in need of defense against enemy armor in the wake of the vehicle buffs, and having a truly effective sidearm that can be used to dispatch vehicles would fill a badly needed balance role.
To accomplish this, I envision the following:
1.) Buff direct damage substantially.
2.) Nerf projectile speed, or introduce more of an arc similar to the Plasma Cannon, or whatever combination of usability adjustments are needed to make the weapon damn near impossible to hit a moving person with.
3.) Lower splash even further, or eliminate completely. This thing needs to ONLY damage with a direct impact - easily achievable against large targets, but not against small moving ones.
4.) Investigate signature radius-based damage scaling as a way to allow high damage against vehicles while limiting effectiveness against infantry.
That's about it. In all honestly, I don't see why a simple set of tweaks can't salvage the Flaylock into a kickass anti-vehicle sidarm. This would be a cool way to buff the Assault class in general, which would suddenly have a tool available that Logistics lack, and enable some stronger A/V fits when combined with swarms and AV grenades (for squads with plenty of infantry protection nearby).
Thoughts? Neat idea? Am I crazy? Would love to hear what you all think. Likes it, i does. Agree with all your modifications, points 1, 2 & 3 are crucial, feel like the damage scaling with sig profile is optional.
But i also like the Flaylok as it stands and don't want to lose it.
So i propose we just add a whole weapons class to CCP's workload and ask for an AV class of racial sidearms =)
I support SP rollover.
|
deepfried salad gilliam
Sanguine Knights
312
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 13:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
How about just remove or lighten the dmg resistance that vehicles have for it,same with md certainly not top choice in av but a squad could repel someone good
"May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace" - Second Corinthians chapter one verse two.
|
Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
938
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 13:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
Flaylock 2.0?
!
|
Spartan MK420
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
36
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
why not just make swarm launchers a secondary weapon |
Alam Storm
Third Rock From The Sun INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS
34
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
i love this idea but to make sure its AV only maybe give it 750 damage per shot and a quicker targeting system then the Swarm launcher
so swarm lunchers do more damage per shot but flaylocks have quicker locking system
and because its a side arm not a main weapon it only has a 100 range not 175 |
TheD1CK
Dead Man's Game
169
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
You are on the right track here, very good idea I think it could be introduced quite simply ... - keep regular flaylocks the same - either add AV ammo type, no splash, maybe slight direct dmg v infantry or none at all - or make an AV variant of the flaylock ....
sounds easy but can CCP work it out ... |
Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
1256
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 19:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
Alam Storm wrote:i love this idea but to make sure its AV only maybe give it 300 damage per shot thats 900 damage before having to reload
and a quicker targeting system then the Swarm launcher
so swarm launchers do more damage per shot but flaylocks have quicker locking system
the flaylock will have a quicker reload speed then the swarm launcher but less range
and because its a side arm not a main weapon it only has a 100 range not 175
so whole point of the flaylock is to have a quicker locking and reloading speed but less range and damage then the swarms
That's about the damage I had in mind. And really if it takes making the Flaylock lock-on only like a swarm in order to balance, this would be ideal for a new variant instead of the standard since it seems many of you still want to use the Flaylock for anti-infantry.
Great feedback guys, keep it going! |
Krom Ganesh
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
946
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 19:23:00 -
[19] - Quote
I think I would prefer an AV variant that deals much more damage, little to no splash, has enough dispersion to make it difficult to hit infantry, and a minimum arming range so it can't be used as a cheap CQC weapon.
!
|
TheD1CK
Dead Man's Game
179
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 19:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Krom Ganesh's description describes exactly how an AV flaylock should perform +1
|
|
Dustbunny Durrr
ReD or DeaD
11
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 19:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote:Alrighty everyone, here's an idea I've been mulling over in the wake of the 1.7 changes, would love to hear what everyone thinks. Note that this is just my personal suggestion, I am not speaking for "The CPM" here (at least not yet, we'll see how popular the notion is.) Also - if this has been proposed before, apologies and I'd love to be redirected to the proper thread for bumping.
The idea is simple, though there are a few ways to implement this. Feel free to suggest your own. Essentially I see an opportunity here for the Flaylock to shine again, and to honor all the SP investment players have made into a now overly-nerfed weapon. Infantry are badly in need of defense against enemy armor in the wake of the vehicle buffs, and having a truly effective sidearm that can be used to dispatch vehicles would fill a badly needed balance role.
To accomplish this, I envision the following:
1.) Buff direct damage substantially.
2.) Nerf projectile speed, or introduce more of an arc similar to the Plasma Cannon, or whatever combination of usability adjustments are needed to make the weapon damn near impossible to hit a moving person with.
3.) Lower splash even further, or eliminate completely. This thing needs to ONLY damage with a direct impact - easily achievable against large targets, but not against small moving ones.
4.) Investigate signature radius-based damage scaling as a way to allow high damage against vehicles while limiting effectiveness against infantry.
That's about it. In all honestly, I don't see why a simple set of tweaks can't salvage the Flaylock into a kickass anti-vehicle sidarm. This would be a cool way to buff the Assault class in general, which would suddenly have a tool available that Logistics lack, and enable some stronger A/V fits when combined with swarms and AV grenades (for squads with plenty of infantry protection nearby).
Thoughts? Neat idea? Am I crazy? Would love to hear what you all think.
Honestly, with the way vehicles are now, a primary weapon (forge, swarm) can't do much to a tank (due to either hardeners, or the ability to roadrunner it out of range when hardeners are off), what would a secondary weapon do? If the answer is not much, then why bother? If the answer is a fair amount, then it would eliminate the need for swarms and forges (and especially AV nades), and all 6 members of a squad would just use it to troll tanks.
I still <3 you Hans |
Alam Storm
Third Rock From The Sun INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS
35
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 04:45:00 -
[22] - Quote
Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote:Alam Storm wrote:i love this idea but to make sure its AV only maybe give it 300 damage per shot thats 900 damage before having to reload
and a quicker targeting system then the Swarm launcher
so swarm launchers do more damage per shot but flaylocks have quicker locking system
the flaylock will have a quicker reload speed then the swarm launcher but less range
and because its a side arm not a main weapon it only has a 100 range not 175
so whole point of the flaylock is to have a quicker locking and reloading speed but less range and damage then the swarms That's about the damage I had in mind. And really if it takes making the Flaylock lock-on only like a swarm in order to balance, this would be ideal for a new variant instead of the standard since it seems many of you still want to use the Flaylock for anti-infantry. Great feedback guys, keep it going!
thank you for agreeing :) |
Ulysses Knapse
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
783
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 04:50:00 -
[23] - Quote
I'm not against the idea of an AV sidearm, but... the Flaylock is a pistol, mate.
What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage?
The pile of garbage looks nicer.
|
Thurak1
Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
436
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 05:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
Heinrich Jagerblitzen wrote:Thurak1 wrote:If you really want it to be just AV take away its dumbfire capability and make a VERY short lock on time and since its a sidearm give it a max range of 100 meters. Pretty sure this is also a possibility. I believe the reason its called a "flaylock" to begin with is because it was initially designed with a lock-on function, which was later deemed (rightfully) OP. Mini-swarm Flaylock could definitely work, if not for it being a little boring in the way it imitates the other's functionality. I think it would be a good way to make it into a anti vehicle sidearm. Taking the dumbfire away means no shooting infantry with it. Since it wouldnt do the same damage as a regular swarm launcher it should have a very short lock on time maybe like half a second. It would be one of those weapons that many people would just start to carry in case they ran into a tank or LAV. Some adjustment would very likely be needed to figure out where the sweet spot damage wise would be. I would also highly recommend making a militia version of this before releasing it. (i just made a new topic on this idea as to how ccp can release more balanced weapons without aggravating customers so much) |
Chief-Shotty
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men.
88
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 10:16:00 -
[25] - Quote
Flaylock pistol is meant to be an explosive sidearm against infantry. It was a bit OP at the beginning but its been nerfed to hell. I still use it every now and then to troll but if anything the splash damage needs to be bigger(pre-nerf values) and keep the damage as it currently is now. Of course an anti vehicle flaylock is already there, just convert the stats of the breach flaylock. That thing already has a pointless splash radius so just boost it's direct damage to 300-500 per missile (breach flaylock only carries 2 rounds per clip)
Problem solved
Trust in the Rust!
7-Time Matar Mass Driver World Champion
Combat Rifle is for Combat!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |