DUST Search - let's talk dust: Flaylocks' radius

Bormir1r wrote:

Sinboto Simmons wrote:

So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting?

Hmm that's not worded right.....

Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards.

I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember.

Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have?

If it was fixed would it be ok?

Just food for thought, conversation is good for you.

Currently the flaylock is (IMO) a decent sidearm, you can easily finish off a heavy with a shotgun blast with the flaylock missiles. However it would be more viable as a sidearm if CCP buffed either the damage keeping the radius constant, OR increase the radius and keep the damage constant. I don't understand why they had nerfed both the radius and damage back in 1.2 (?) when they only needed to do one of them to balance the weapon out. It seemed after all the QQ CCP wanted to make sure that there would never again be complaints about the flaylock being OP (which has basically happened).

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sinboto Simmons SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 4719	Posted - 2014.02.28 10:11:00 - [1] - Quote So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting? Hmm that's not worded right..... Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards. I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember. Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have? If it was fixed would it be ok? Just food for thought, conversation is good for you. Sinboto - The True Blood Minja Forum Warrior level 4 STB-Infantry (Demolition)
DEZKA DIABLO 0uter.Heaven 320	Posted - 2014.02.28 10:40:00 - [2] - Quote Think of it this way( just a theory) Since you use remotes lets use that as the example, now I assume that remotes blast like a nano hive ( half sphere). Now the reason some remotes miss is because the victim is on the edge of the sphere, in the center the blast is higher= pilots licence. Now if faylocks, react the same than the distribution would technically be absorbed into what it's hitting outward, unless it reacts in reverse so that when it hits it semi spheres outward from the surface it hits. Grenades seem to explode in a sphere shape, never any hit detection problems, but maybe faylocks an mass drivers react differently in the shape they explode? Food for thought Dead trigger master , an ya I do that ISH ON PURPOSE!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2097	Posted - 2014.02.28 12:16:00 - [3] - Quote DEZKA DIABLO wrote: Think of it this way( just a theory) Since you use remotes lets use that as the example, now I assume that remotes blast like a nano hive ( half sphere). Now the reason some remotes miss is because the victim is on the edge of the sphere, in the center the blast is higher= pilots licence. Now if faylocks, react the same than the distribution would technically be absorbed into what it's hitting outward, unless it reacts in reverse so that when it hits it semi spheres outward from the surface it hits. Grenades seem to explode in a sphere shape, never any hit detection problems, but maybe faylocks an mass drivers react differently in the shape they explode? Food for thought All explosives explode in circles, however the explosion emintates from a single point, if this point is say on the side of a mole hill your explosion shape changes dramatically, thus you miss, therefore it is a combination of both. Explosives inability to diffuse round obstacles as it should be capable of, and a severly reduced radius that unlike the other explosive weapons isn't capable of making up for the shortfall. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
mr musturd 0uter.Heaven 386	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:34:00 - [4] - Quote I'd be fine with the small radius if it did enough damage to kill someone with an entire clip at proto level
Kelc Ct'elpem Nos Nothi 273	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:45:00 - [5] - Quote mr musturd wrote: I'd be fine with the small radius if it did enough damage to kill someone with an entire clip at proto level Yes I would be fine with this as well. Though, I do sometimes find my blast does not do any damage. Interestingly hoping Medium frames seem to be able to jump out of my blasts (this never seems to happen with Heavies) Is this the small blast radius, or some kind of glitch? Performing Rocket Surgery with my Flaylock, one head at a time
Buster Friently Rosen Association 1882	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:46:00 - [6] - Quote Kelc Ct'elpem wrote: mr musturd wrote: I'd be fine with the small radius if it did enough damage to kill someone with an entire clip at proto level Yes I would be fine with this as well. Though, I do sometimes find my blast does not do any damage. Interestingly hoping Medium frames seem to be able to jump out of my blasts (this never seems to happen with Heavies) Is this the small blast radius, or some kind of glitch? yes.
Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 1294	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:50:00 - [7] - Quote Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this?
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:51:00 - [8] - Quote Dont forgot its nothing else than sidearm, hell its basicaly pistol. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
Kelc Ct'elpem Nos Nothi 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:53:00 - [9] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this? At this point yes Though the 1.8 changes will adjust some things, so I am not sure if they would be brutally OP after those changes are implemented. I certainly hope the Flaylock has gotten an adjustment with 1.8 though. Performing Rocket Surgery with my Flaylock, one head at a time
mr musturd 0uter.Heaven 389	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:55:00 - [10] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Dont forgot its nothing else than sidearm, hell its basicaly pistol. No if it was a pistol it would murder fools. Scrambler pistol hits like a brick. Flaylock is more of a novelty weapon

Kelc Ct'elpem Nos Nothi 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:56:00 - [11] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Dont forgot its nothing else than sidearm, hell its basicaly pistol. All other Sidearms > Flaylock I can take any other sidearm (which I use predominantly as a sidearm wielding scout) and go toe to toe with any suit if I can mitigate range. Sidearms are not necessarily weaker than Light Weapons, they just have different limitations. Performing Rocket Surgery with my Flaylock, one head at a time
Buster Friently Rosen Association 1883	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:57:00 - [12] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this? Of course this is true. They weren't even overpowerd when CCP reflexively nerfed them. They were useful, in a niche, just like any weapon should be. We had, though, the AR nerf brigade, too stubborn to learn any tactics, cry like a banshee on the forums to have the weapon nerfed so the AR brigade could still run straight in to extreme close range and not get owned by an extreme short range niche weapon. This has happened time and time again.
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:00:00 - [13] - Quote Kelc Ct'elpem wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this? At this point yes Though the 1.8 changes will adjust some things, so I am not sure if they would be brutally OP after those changes are implemented. I certainly hope the Flaylock has gotten an adjustment with 1.8 though. They were brutal to like a sidearm before that nerf, but how i saw manytimes players still can make kill with it. Im honestly for some tinking with it, but not for a some major buff what will make it FoTM again. It should be a sidearm and right nor, if you shooting a runner and he stops behind corner or any type of structure, you still can kill him by few shots (how it should be). There is not reason for big buff. Edit.:If its too difficult to kill someone with it, why players like night 5talker 514 (yup that boyo who making videos about dust for us) can kill people ingame?! Basicaly the flaylock itslelf is not a direct meant firearm. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
mr musturd 0uter.Heaven 390	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:07:00 - [14] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Kelc Ct'elpem wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this? At this point yes Though the 1.8 changes will adjust some things, so I am not sure if they would be brutally OP after those changes are implemented. I certainly hope the Flaylock has gotten an adjustment with 1.8 though. They were brutal to like a sidearm before that nerf, but how i saw manytimes players still can make kill with it. Im honestly for some tinking with it, but not for a some major buff what will make it FoTM again. It should be a sidearm and right nor, if you shooting a runner and he stops behind corner or any type of structure, you still can kill him by few shots (how it should be). There is not reason for big buff. Only suits you can kill with a flaylock and mlt guys and scouts unless they're already injured
Cyrius Li-Moody 0uter.Heaven 3888	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:08:00 - [15] - Quote Flaylock suuuuuuuuuuuucks! Youtuber. Your friendly neighborhood whiskey-fueled merc.
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:09:00 - [16] - Quote You all just starting another FoTM nothing else, im out of this. Im basicaly not fa of OP weapons, im fan of balancing not a making eazmode guns. But its on you, im out i told what i wanted. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
Bormir1r WarRavens League of Infamy 130	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:12:00 - [17] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting? Hmm that's not worded right..... Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards. I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember. Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have? If it was fixed would it be ok? Just food for thought, conversation is good for you. Currently the flaylock is (IMO) a decent sidearm, you can easily finish off a heavy with a shotgun blast with the flaylock missiles. However it would be more viable as a sidearm if CCP buffed either the damage keeping the radius constant, OR increase the radius and keep the damage constant. I don't understand why they had nerfed both the radius and damage back in 1.2 (?) when they only needed to do one of them to balance the weapon out. It seemed after all the QQ CCP wanted to make sure that there would never again be complaints about the flaylock being OP (which has basically happened). "One does not simply" look for a scout, it looks for you.
ALT2 acc 168	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:19:00 - [18] - Quote Bormir1r wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting? Hmm that's not worded right..... Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards. I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember. Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have? If it was fixed would it be ok? Just food for thought, conversation is good for you. Currently the flaylock is (IMO) a decent sidearm, you can easily finish off a heavy with a shotgun blast with the flaylock missiles. However it would be more viable as a sidearm if CCP buffed either the damage keeping the radius constant, OR increase the radius and keep the damage constant. I don't understand why they had nerfed both the radius and damage back in 1.2 (?) when they only needed to do one of them to balance the weapon out. It seemed after all the QQ CCP wanted to make sure that there would never again be complaints about the flaylock being OP (which has basically happened). The plc has it too If it explodes 0.1m away from enemy, 20 damage Hater attractor proficiency 5, hater attractor optimization 5.
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2438	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:26:00 - [19] - Quote I think the flaylock needs a buff, just not a normal one. The operations and prof need a 1 percent buff per level. As well as increasing the radius by .15-25 across tiers and increasing the direct dmg. "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
ALT2 acc 168	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:27:00 - [20] - Quote Cody Sietz wrote: I think the flaylock needs a buff, just not a normal one. The operations and prof need a 1 percent buff per level. As well as increasing the radius by .15-25 across tiers and increasing the direct dmg. And splash damage Hater attractor proficiency 5, hater attractor optimization 5.

Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2440	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:32:00 - [21] - Quote ALT2 acc wrote: Cody Sietz wrote: I think the flaylock needs a buff, just not a normal one. The operations and prof need a 1 percent buff per level. As well as increasing the radius by .15-25 across tiers and increasing the direct dmg. And splash damage Splash is the one thing I don't think should get touched, unless they don't buff the radius. If the radius stays the same, then a dmg buff for splash is the only other thing that can make the weapon worth using. "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:32:00 - [22] - Quote Bormir1r wrote: Sinboto Simmons wrote: So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting? Hmm that's not worded right..... Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards. I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember. Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have? If it was fixed would it be ok? Just food for thought, conversation is good for you. Currently the flaylock is (IMO) a decent sidearm, you can easily finish off a heavy with a shotgun blast with the flaylock missiles. However it would be more viable as a sidearm if CCP buffed either the damage keeping the radius constant, OR increase the radius and keep the damage constant. I don't understand why they had nerfed both the radius and damage back in 1.2 (?) when they only needed to do one of them to balance the weapon out. It seemed after all the QQ CCP wanted to make sure that there would never again be complaints about the flaylock being OP (which has basically happened). There i can agree, small tweak to damage seems reasonable. Radius one just make another (smaller) MD in my eyes. Damage boost for splash itself is way where i can agree, but still not a big one. Flaylock must be still a SIDEarm. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 3274	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:50:00 - [23] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting? Hmm that's not worded right..... Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards. I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember. Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have? If it was fixed would it be ok? Just food for thought, conversation is good for you. I think it's related to trigonometry. When firing at someone at ground level, the angle of impact is VERY shallow. At shallow angles, it only takes a small increase in your Y-Axis to greatly change the impact point. In short, at ground level, it is very easy to mess up the impact point, which makes the gun seem more inaccurate. When firing while above someone, the angle of impact is either very wide, or 90 degrees. This means that small changes to the angle will have a much smaller effect on the point of impact. A 1 degree shift from this angle will only change the impact point by a very small distance, as opposed to the above, where it will have a much greater impact. This makes the gun seem more accurate when firing above people, as it will be more forgiving for your aim. That's my take on it at least. When running flaylock scout, make sure to jump before firing the flaylock. Works wonders. Nothing says "F**K YOU!" like a direct Flaylock to the face. I've got 3k likes, I'll double post if I want to dammit!
ROMULUS H3X research lab 59	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:07:00 - [24] - Quote Sinboto Simmons wrote: So just wondering what yall think: is radius really the flaylocks' problem or is it that the rounds are not connecting? Hmm that's not worded right..... Some context: anyone that uses MDs, Plasma cannons, ect will tell you that being up high is where you generally want to be not because it's harder to shoot you and the FOV (that's nice though) but because it seems rounds tend to hit more often and harder then if you were on flat ground or aiming upwards. I hear it's got something to do with how the damage is applied or something but I'm to dead to remember. Anyway is it that the flaylock needs more radius or that it's not applying the (admitably tiny) radius that it does have? If it was fixed would it be ok? Just food for thought, conversation is good for you. The Flaylock is perfect the way it is. My shots register when they are supposed to, sometimes I miss a whole clip but that's because of the enemy's dancing not because the radius being too small. Yet, even if i missed that whole first clip, guess what? I already reloaded in 1 second and another 3 shots are already heading for your kneecaps (Rapid reload 5 is key to disregarding the small clip size) Nothing needs to be "fixed" except maybe the distance at which the projectile can travel... it does seem a little short sometimes maybe just 10 or 15 meters more but that's not a big deal at all... sometimes my shots explode right in front of their faces like 2meters away (such a BALL RUB) If you shoot from above with the flaylock you will see it's very easy to connect shots, either it pops on their dome pieces or on their ankles. Personally my favorite instances are when a shotgun scout sneaks up on me and gets the first shot and i just turn around and bang 2 Missles in his chest and watch him fly and FACEPLANT into a wall 15 meters away. FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS--NUFF SED YOU SHALL NOT CATCH ME FOR I AM THE GINGERBREAD FATMAN -Romulus H3X
ROMULUS H3X research lab 59	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:20:00 - [25] - Quote Cyrius Li-Moody wrote: Flaylock suuuuuuuuuuuucks! Wrong. FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS--NUFF SED YOU SHALL NOT CATCH ME FOR I AM THE GINGERBREAD FATMAN -Romulus H3X
D legendary hero Ultramarine Corp 1761	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:27:00 - [26] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this? it actually needs alittle more than this. armor is op Sou o Defendeiro dos derrubados_Pronto saberá justiça
D legendary hero Ultramarine Corp 1761	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:28:00 - [27] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Dont forgot its nothing else than sidearm, hell its basicaly pistol. except it doesnt fire instant hit scans Sou o Defendeiro dos derrubados_Pronto saberá justiça
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 274	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:31:00 - [28] - Quote D legendary hero wrote: Sam Tektzby wrote: Dont forgot its nothing else than sidearm, hell its basicaly pistol. except it doesnt fire instant hit scans I know, but i still can understand small tweak instead of big buff. Flaylock is not nerfed to oblivion how someone told before. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
D legendary hero Ultramarine Corp 1763	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:31:00 - [29] - Quote Sam Tektzby wrote: Kelc Ct'elpem wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Flaylocks are a perfect example of why balancing before all content is on the field, and balancing based on poor core mechanics, is doomed to failure. At this point, IMO, flaylocks could be returned to their old stats in both blast radius and damage, and not be overpowered. Thoughts on this? At this point yes Though the 1.8 changes will adjust some things, so I am not sure if they would be brutally OP after those changes are implemented. I certainly hope the Flaylock has gotten an adjustment with 1.8 though. They were brutal to like a sidearm before that nerf, but how i saw manytimes players still can make kill with it. Im honestly for some tinking with it, but not for a some major buff what will make it FoTM again. It should be a sidearm and right nor, if you shooting a runner and he stops behind corner or any type of structure, you still can kill him by few shots (how it should be). There is not reason for big buff. Edit.:If its too difficult to kill someone with it, why players like night 5talker 514 (yup that boyo who making videos about dust for us) can kill people ingame?! Basicaly the flaylock itslelf is not a direct meant firearm. people who use a broke weapon effectively dont change that it is broken. I know people who are god's with a plasma cannon and LR does that mean that they arent broke? Sou o Defendeiro dos derrubados_Pronto saberá justiça
Cyrius Li-Moody 0uter.Heaven 3894	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:31:00 - [30] - Quote ROMULUS H3X wrote: Cyrius Li-Moody wrote: Flaylock suuuuuuuuuuuucks! Wrong. I've all side arms at proto. Please tell me how the flaylock is not the most worthless out of the group? A basic scrambler pistol does more damage to armor in a single clip than a proto flaylock. Scrambler does -20% to armor. Youtuber. Your friendly neighborhood whiskey-fueled merc.



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