DUST Search - [Request] increase MD and HMG efficacy on vehicles

True Adamance wrote:

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

The mass driver should have full damage efficacy against vehicles. The weapon is very underused right now, and increasing its effectiveness on vehicles would really expand its niche; would make it more useful, and more used. Furthermore it is classified as a launcher along with the plasma cannon and the swarm launcher according to CCP, so it would make sense.
EDIT: Flaylock should also do full damage.

I would also like to see the HMG do more damage against vehicles; not full damage, but a percentage comparable to a small vehicle turret. 35% against shields, 50% against armor: basically 40% efficacy with the shield/armor efficacy of projectiles applied. The forge gun is anti-vehicle, yet effective against infantry, so I think the HMG being moderately effective against vehicles would be fair; the low range and the fact that it only has half the efficacy also balances it as an AV option.

We need more variety of AV options anyway

EDIT:
Tested the HMG against vehicles
LAV: 38% on shields, 44% on armor
Dropship: 38% on shields, 44% on armor
HAV: 9% against shields, 11% on armor

I don't see why HAVs get extra resistance against HMGs, they don't need it. Just make the HMG efficacy on tanks same as other vehicles.

Why? You are firing small calibre bullets at 120mm of armour plating or massive kinetic shield....

Because its a heavy weapon on par with small vehicle turrets. The individual shots themselves may not do much, but collectively they should have a noticeable effect when shooting at 15000 rounds per minute.
I'm not asking for full damage, just the same damage it already does to dropships and LAVs. The fact that the HAVs have tougher defenses is already factored in the HP, extra resistances aren't required.

You have no idea how Minmatar small turrets are going to work..... you cannot justify firing small calibre weaponry at heavy armour and simply saying that it........ works...... that doesn't make sense...... I agree that I don't think HAV should have better
resistances to light weapons....that also doesnt make sense given we already have higher armour and shield values.

Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9025	Posted - 2014.02.11 08:01:00 - [31] - Quote Make it a reality! Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
McFurious TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 617	Posted - 2014.02.11 08:40:00 - [32] - Quote I need to kill assault dropships with my MD. Or at least make them fly away. Half Irish. Often angry. Closed Beta Masshole
General12912 Gallente Marine Corps 58	Posted - 2014.02.11 10:47:00 - [33] - Quote the reason why we dont see matari and amarr AV is because neither of them have vehicles... yet. as long as they dont, it would make no sense to do so. im sure once the matari and amarr vehicles, matari nd amarrian AV be out too. or at least soon to follow
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9251	Posted - 2014.02.16 22:14:00 - [34] - Quote General12912 wrote: the reason why we dont see matari and amarr AV is because neither of them have vehicles... yet. as long as they dont, it would make no sense to do so. im sure once the matari and amarr vehicles, matari nd amarrian AV be out too. or at least soon to follow I'm pretty sure lore-wise they already exist, but they just haven't been released to mercs yet. Example: The burst assault rifle existed in the game before the combat rifle, but in lore it is actually the Gallente's attempt to mimic the combat rifle. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
IR Scifi Knights of Eternal Darkness League of Infamy 111	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:14:00 - [35] - Quote I miss the bad ole days when I could stare down a crappy LAV with my mass driver and have a good chance of blowing them up. My MD hungers for LAV kills, CCP LET ME FEED IT!
Bethhy Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 1236	Posted - 2014.02.17 01:17:00 - [36] - Quote Would be cool if the flaylock was a sidearm option for AV aswell... Having a Flaylock that does 50% less damage to infantry but 200% to Vehicles would be neat.. There is a travel distance to rounds so it would be used as a defensive means that a tank could counter with situational awareness and approach. But a general 50% damage increase would be agreeable even.
Grimmiers 0uter.Heaven 415	Posted - 2014.02.17 02:05:00 - [37] - Quote lasor could be a good av light weapon too SoundCloud Recruiter Link Pronounced Grim-e-urs
Thrillhouse Van Houten DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 83	Posted - 2014.02.17 07:33:00 - [38] - Quote Laser rifles should at least eat vehicle shields. It might bring them back into vogue, too, as capable AI (at the right ranges) and mentionable AV. +1 on the MDs for sure. +1 on the HMG, too, but a little more leery. Blaster tanks are almost fearless in tight quarters maps (especially if you can't get a FGer up on something with a DS). Tanks used to fear the tighter spaces and they bloody should. HMGs doing at least some more damage, if not the same as to other vehicles, is pretty justifiable. Maybe with the conciliation of SLIGHTLY less damage to infantry (they **** everything that isn't at RR/ScR range).
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9527	Posted - 2014.02.23 09:18:00 - [39] - Quote Do it! Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Mordecai Sanguine What The French Red Whines 469	Posted - 2014.02.23 13:19:00 - [40] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The mass driver should have full damage efficacy against vehicles. The weapon is very underused right now, and increasing its effectiveness on vehicles would really expand its niche; would make it more useful, and more used. Furthermore it is classified as a launcher along with the plasma cannon and the swarm launcher according to CCP, so it would make sense. I would also like to see the HMG do more damage against vehicles; not full damage, but a percentage comparable to a small vehicle turret. 35% against shields, 50% against armor: basically 40% efficacy with the shield/armor efficacy of projectiles applied. The forge gun is anti-vehicle, yet effective against infantry, so I think the HMG being moderately effective against vehicles would be fair; the low range and the fact that it only has half the efficacy also balances it as an AV option. We need more variety of AV options anyway EDIT: Tested the HMG against vehicles LAV: 38% on shields, 44% on armor Dropship: 38% on shields, 44% on armor HAV: 9% against shields, 11% on armor I don't see why HAVs get extra resistance against HMGs, they don't need it. Just make the HMG efficacy on tanks same as other vehicles. No. MD shouldn't have full damage against vehicules. Maybe 50% but not 100% It already DESTRO LAV and dropships with some flux.
Mahal Daj Mahal Tactical Enterprises 21	Posted - 2014.02.23 15:58:00 - [41] - Quote I agree in general with the manipulation of damage resists against vehicles. It would be great if a 6-squad could at least cause concern to MLT tanks with anti-infantry weapons, while the quality (resists) of basic+ gear wouldn't suffer from the same issue and require more dedicated AV. I think this would alleviate some MLT tank spam and give infantry a "chasing off the T-Rex" experience that would be very rewarding for Anti-Infantry specialists. Boost your squad's points by 40%, learn to use the Squad Wheel! I provide training: 1M isk: 90 Minutes of Basic Command
Beeeees KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 374	Posted - 2014.02.23 16:34:00 - [42] - Quote I agree, changing the MD would give medium and light infantry some more room concerning multi-purpose weaponry. So far mediums have no options for that save for the PC, which is only good for trickshots if you ask me. The HMG dealing more damage to tanks seems fitting, too. Considering its effective range, there is really not a single reason not to.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9661	Posted - 2014.02.28 16:34:00 - [43] - Quote Dooo it! Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
The-Errorist 521	Posted - 2014.03.02 18:51:00 - [44] - Quote +1
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 9843	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:30:00 - [45] - Quote Still should happen Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
The-Errorist 553	Posted - 2014.03.09 21:51:00 - [46] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Still should happen I agree.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10368	Posted - 2014.04.09 22:21:00 - [47] - Quote I want Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 759	Posted - 2014.04.09 22:24:00 - [48] - Quote NEVER doubt the HMG.. i have made even hardened dropships run from this weapon. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10368	Posted - 2014.04.09 22:27:00 - [49] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: NEVER doubt the HMG.. i have made even hardened dropships run from this weapon. I am aware, in fact in the OP I state that I want the HMG to be as good against tanks as it currently is against LAVs and dropships. I don't want it to be any stronger against dropships. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1214	Posted - 2014.04.09 23:15:00 - [50] - Quote there is no reason at all why there should be any damage resistance to small arms on vehicles in dust. at the end of the day armor is armor and shield is shield. I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9380	Posted - 2014.04.09 23:35:00 - [51] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The mass driver should have full damage efficacy against vehicles. The weapon is very underused right now, and increasing its effectiveness on vehicles would really expand its niche; would make it more useful, and more used. Furthermore it is classified as a launcher along with the plasma cannon and the swarm launcher according to CCP, so it would make sense. EDIT: Flaylock should also do full damage. I would also like to see the HMG do more damage against vehicles; not full damage, but a percentage comparable to a small vehicle turret. 35% against shields, 50% against armor: basically 40% efficacy with the shield/armor efficacy of projectiles applied. The forge gun is anti-vehicle, yet effective against infantry, so I think the HMG being moderately effective against vehicles would be fair; the low range and the fact that it only has half the efficacy also balances it as an AV option. We need more variety of AV options anyway EDIT: Tested the HMG against vehicles LAV: 38% on shields, 44% on armor Dropship: 38% on shields, 44% on armor HAV: 9% against shields, 11% on armor I don't see why HAVs get extra resistance against HMGs, they don't need it. Just make the HMG efficacy on tanks same as other vehicles. Why? You are firing small calibre bullets at 120mm of armour plating or massive kinetic shield.... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10373	Posted - 2014.04.09 23:56:00 - [52] - Quote True Adamance wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The mass driver should have full damage efficacy against vehicles. The weapon is very underused right now, and increasing its effectiveness on vehicles would really expand its niche; would make it more useful, and more used. Furthermore it is classified as a launcher along with the plasma cannon and the swarm launcher according to CCP, so it would make sense. EDIT: Flaylock should also do full damage. I would also like to see the HMG do more damage against vehicles; not full damage, but a percentage comparable to a small vehicle turret. 35% against shields, 50% against armor: basically 40% efficacy with the shield/armor efficacy of projectiles applied. The forge gun is anti-vehicle, yet effective against infantry, so I think the HMG being moderately effective against vehicles would be fair; the low range and the fact that it only has half the efficacy also balances it as an AV option. We need more variety of AV options anyway EDIT: Tested the HMG against vehicles LAV: 38% on shields, 44% on armor Dropship: 38% on shields, 44% on armor HAV: 9% against shields, 11% on armor I don't see why HAVs get extra resistance against HMGs, they don't need it. Just make the HMG efficacy on tanks same as other vehicles. Why? You are firing small calibre bullets at 120mm of armour plating or massive kinetic shield.... Because its a heavy weapon on par with small vehicle turrets. The individual shots themselves may not do much, but collectively they should have a noticeable effect when shooting at 15000 rounds per minute. I'm not asking for full damage, just the same damage it already does to dropships and LAVs. The fact that the HAVs have tougher defenses is already factored in the HP, extra resistances aren't required. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9389	Posted - 2014.04.10 01:27:00 - [53] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: True Adamance wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The mass driver should have full damage efficacy against vehicles. The weapon is very underused right now, and increasing its effectiveness on vehicles would really expand its niche; would make it more useful, and more used. Furthermore it is classified as a launcher along with the plasma cannon and the swarm launcher according to CCP, so it would make sense. EDIT: Flaylock should also do full damage. I would also like to see the HMG do more damage against vehicles; not full damage, but a percentage comparable to a small vehicle turret. 35% against shields, 50% against armor: basically 40% efficacy with the shield/armor efficacy of projectiles applied. The forge gun is anti-vehicle, yet effective against infantry, so I think the HMG being moderately effective against vehicles would be fair; the low range and the fact that it only has half the efficacy also balances it as an AV option. We need more variety of AV options anyway EDIT: Tested the HMG against vehicles LAV: 38% on shields, 44% on armor Dropship: 38% on shields, 44% on armor HAV: 9% against shields, 11% on armor I don't see why HAVs get extra resistance against HMGs, they don't need it. Just make the HMG efficacy on tanks same as other vehicles. Why? You are firing small calibre bullets at 120mm of armour plating or massive kinetic shield.... Because its a heavy weapon on par with small vehicle turrets. The individual shots themselves may not do much, but collectively they should have a noticeable effect when shooting at 15000 rounds per minute. I'm not asking for full damage, just the same damage it already does to dropships and LAVs. The fact that the HAVs have tougher defenses is already factored in the HP, extra resistances aren't required. You have no idea how Minmatar small turrets are going to work..... you cannot justify firing small calibre weaponry at heavy armour and simply saying that it........ works...... that doesn't make sense...... I agree that I don't think HAV should have better resistances to light weapons....that also doesnt make sense given we already have higher armour and shield values. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10382	Posted - 2014.04.10 01:36:00 - [54] - Quote True Adamance wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: True Adamance wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The mass driver should have full damage efficacy against vehicles. The weapon is very underused right now, and increasing its effectiveness on vehicles would really expand its niche; would make it more useful, and more used. Furthermore it is classified as a launcher along with the plasma cannon and the swarm launcher according to CCP, so it would make sense. EDIT: Flaylock should also do full damage. I would also like to see the HMG do more damage against vehicles; not full damage, but a percentage comparable to a small vehicle turret. 35% against shields, 50% against armor: basically 40% efficacy with the shield/armor efficacy of projectiles applied. The forge gun is anti-vehicle, yet effective against infantry, so I think the HMG being moderately effective against vehicles would be fair; the low range and the fact that it only has half the efficacy also balances it as an AV option. We need more variety of AV options anyway EDIT: Tested the HMG against vehicles LAV: 38% on shields, 44% on armor Dropship: 38% on shields, 44% on armor HAV: 9% against shields, 11% on armor I don't see why HAVs get extra resistance against HMGs, they don't need it. Just make the HMG efficacy on tanks same as other vehicles. Why? You are firing small calibre bullets at 120mm of armour plating or massive kinetic shield.... Because its a heavy weapon on par with small vehicle turrets. The individual shots themselves may not do much, but collectively they should have a noticeable effect when shooting at 15000 rounds per minute. I'm not asking for full damage, just the same damage it already does to dropships and LAVs. The fact that the HAVs have tougher defenses is already factored in the HP, extra resistances aren't required. You have no idea how Minmatar small turrets are going to work..... you cannot justify firing small calibre weaponry at heavy armour and simply saying that it........ works...... that doesn't make sense...... I agree that I don't think HAV should have better resistances to light weapons....that also doesnt make sense given we already have higher armour and shield values. I was not making a specific comparison between Minmatar turrets and the HMG, but a general comparison of heavy weapons and small turrets. Consider that a small blaster is actually pretty much a light weapon attached to a tank, they are basically ARs, while the HMG outputs far more damage per second. It doesn't make sense why a small blaster would really be more damaging to a tank than an HMG. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
McFurious TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 705	Posted - 2014.04.10 04:09:00 - [55] - Quote +1 for the MD I'm sick of ADS's floating above me, not moving and firing missiles down on me because they know my MD rounds aren't even going to scratch them. Half Irish. Often angry. Closed Beta Masshole

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page