DUST Search - Av weapons should be sidearms

True Adamance wrote:

ZDub 303 wrote:

I would support AV focused sidearms and a general buff to AV nades as well. But to have forge guns or even (buffed and fixed) swarm launchers as a sidearm that everyone carries would be far too powerful.

I do understand the frustration with switching between AI and AV though, esp considering how there are almost no supply depots on most maps.

In fact... I think a much better plan would be to make it so depots and turrets cannot be permanently destroyed, only disabled. That way vehicles cant roll around the map and destroy every single installation within the first 2 minutes or so.

Perhaps....maybe even if not permanently destroyed replaceable somehow.

I also agree with the AV grenade statement. Currently top tier AV nades are usable against HAV units......it could be that pack AV grenades recieve a bonus or some sort to damage but suffer in other ways like not detonating on impact or not homing.

Otherwise I feel the only AV grenade used would these buffed Pack AV grenades.....could you imagine in future how those could unbalance lighter frame ground vehicles.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 02:23:00 - [1] - Quote I believe CCP is trying to implement a similar mechanic with the Commando suits. I'm not saying no or anything, but I want to see how this plays out first. AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:03:00 - [2] - Quote The dark cloud wrote: Atiim wrote: I believe CCP is trying to implement a similar mechanic with the Commando suits. I'm not saying no or anything, but I want to see how this plays out first. Commandos are not really good for AV. Too slow, not much of fitting options etc. We need this so that every 1 ranging from the newest player to the oldest vet can contribute in fighting vehicles back. And if you don't believe me then you should see how ambush matches turn out with 7 tanks on one side. You mean 9? Because that's the team-quota in Ambush Anyways, the Commando is basically a weaker Sentinel with 2 Light Weapon Slots, but the Magsec SMG will mean that using a Sentinel with a Forge Gun will be the best option in 1.8; and will outshine the Commando in terms of damage and power. The only advantages the Commando has is the ability to carry their own Nanohives, and the ability to carry two AV weapons. However, I don't think it would be balanced if 14-16 players instantly had PRO AV the second a pilot showed up. Could you imagine what it would be like to run a scout while everyone is spamming Assault MDs and Focused Scanners? That's what being a vehicle pilot would feel like if AV was made into a sidearm. I believe the best course of action would be an AV frame. Your suit gets bonuses that would greatly improve the AV weapon, and would also transform AV into a true role. Every other role in the game has a frame that compliments it, so why not give AV the same? I really hope the Magsec SMG is good though. It would finally solve one of the biggest problems that AV has. AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:08:00 - [3] - Quote True Adamance wrote: ZDub 303 wrote: I would support AV focused sidearms and a general buff to AV nades as well. But to have forge guns or even (buffed and fixed) swarm launchers as a sidearm that everyone carries would be far too powerful. I do understand the frustration with switching between AI and AV though, esp considering how there are almost no supply depots on most maps. In fact... I think a much better plan would be to make it so depots and turrets cannot be permanently destroyed, only disabled. That way vehicles cant roll around the map and destroy every single installation within the first 2 minutes or so. Perhaps....maybe even if not permanently destroyed replaceable somehow. I also agree with the AV grenade statement. Currently top tier AV nades are usable against HAV units......it could be that pack AV grenades recieve a bonus or some sort to damage but suffer in other ways like not detonating on impact or not homing. Otherwise I feel the only AV grenade used would these buffed Pack AV grenades.....could you imagine in future how those could unbalance lighter frame ground vehicles. How about we make it to where we can purchase and deploy our own installations? You know, that option that's been sitting in the deployment window since 1.0? AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:09:00 - [4] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Your lack of Faith is disturbing Atiim. Have faith in the laser. We Commando's will quash the sentinel spam with our righteous 10% damage extra laser rifles! Stacks Armor Plates Pulls out MagSec SMG AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:16:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: That has been a much awaited feature....I didnt post it because well...ZDubs and .....mockery...and well....etc. Agreed., in many respects I could really see the battlefield changing shape if turret/ installations could be called in. Could these then consume vehicle slots? Additionally I would all like to think one day I could deploy in my tank in a similar manner at a squad leaders request....at say the cost of a 15-20 second period where I can neither move, use modules or shoot. I'd actually love to see them consume vehicle slots. Maybe we could even return the Small Turret Installations from replication. As for your tank, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that. Though 20s seems a bit long. AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5626	Posted - 2014.03.12 03:22:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: knight of 6 wrote: I could support light weapon AV as a side arm option. the forge however should stay a primary. obviously rebalencing light AV would need to happen to reflect it's new status. And while that has its benefits it seems needlessly complicated does it not? My question is and I hope someone can answer me. Why are we as a community trying to balance AV against HAV as opposed to HAV against set AV values? Indeed. That's why I've been pushing for Light and Heavy Vehicle Hardeners as well. That way we could adjust HAVs without affecting DSs and LAVs. AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5637	Posted - 2014.03.12 20:21:00 - [7] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Heavy with a rail rifle kills a sh!t ton of people from a distance Sees tank Pulls out FG That would be so balanced. As opposed to this scenario? Quote: Tanker With Ion Cannon kills a $#!t ton of people Sees AV Turns on Hardener AV > HAV > INF > AV \| Not: HAV > AV GëÑ INF [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND