DUST Search - How to un**** the situation with Shotguns

Magnus Amadeuss wrote:

Toby Flenderson wrote:

Magnus Amadeuss wrote:

No it hasn't. There has been no reliable evidence at ALL presented here. A couple of scrubs on the forums don't count as evidence. Want to prove it to everyone? Make a recording. Oh you have no evidence, then you will excuse me if I don't believe a couple of forum go'ers.

Haha you're going to feel so silly when you realize we're all right. It's like riding the bus and the person sitting next to you saying "the bus driver is a man". Easier thing to confirm, just look. Raising controversy about how the person could prove it you is a waste of time when you could just look yourself. There is no tree fallig and no one is there to hear if it makes a sound. The tree fell and there were many of us there to here it make a sound and you just weren't invited. If you want to sit around waiting for the next tree to fall then be my guest, but don't try to raise controversy on the matter when the rest of us were there to see/hear it for ourselves.

TL;DR: just because it has not been seen by you does not mean that it remains unconfirmed. It's been confirmed by everyone that has observed it happen. There is no room for it to be false just because you haven't seen it. Clearly y simply just don trust me, so I invite you to stop telling people it's false until you see it for yourself since that's apparently the only way truth merges out of the world.

So we just learned two things:

1) you are no scientist, and do not have a scientific mind. If an observation is not repeatable, it is thrown out. Luckily enough, there are other forum go'ers who are attempting to figure out exactly how to reproduce it.

2) Your english composition is also horrible. Seriously I could barely read what you just wrote.

Listen, if I were to believe what a couple of people just said, I guess aliens and bigfoot must be real. I need evidence and fortunately enough another forum go'er will reproduce it and post a video of it.

I myself was not able to produce it so far, but it may be a bunch of different circumstances that have to occur to make it happen. Maybe you can not reproduce it using an amarr scout..... In the end though nothing changes the fact that it is not intended, it is OP, and if it is occurring, bug reports should be submitted. Unless of course you saw the crouch/sprint overheat bug as a "feature" or the melee bug, or the ammo bug.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jakar Umbra Altyr Initiative 572	Posted - 2014.04.15 11:07:00 - [61] - Quote Of course everyone says shotguns are fine, it's not like there isn't a RoF bug or anything... Author of Umbra's Short Stories Boundless Creations Shareholder.
Jake Diesel BIG BAD W0LVES Canis Eliminatus Operatives 151	Posted - 2014.04.15 11:20:00 - [62] - Quote Alldin Kan wrote: "B-but it takes x shots up close to kill x suit..." Should I spec into Shotguns to properly demonstrate how OP it can be? Oh wait, the "Dren" is all I need Some people just don't know. I've seen a player go 40/2 prior to 1.7 with a shotgun and he was running Minmatar fit. Either a logi or assault. It's the only assault type weapon I know that can drop pretty much anything in two hits. And that guy wasn't even flanking. He rushed them head on. The scrubs who deny this cannot achieve the same effectiveness.
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1452	Posted - 2014.04.15 12:20:00 - [63] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: Uhh... ok so I guess CCP is lying then: CCP wrote: * Shared passive scanner vision for squads disabled (results of active scanners are still shared with squads) from here If they are being shared, file a bug report because they should not be. I wonder if : Flyingconejo NAV HIV DozersMouse XIII Adipem Nothi Toby Flenderson are going to file bug reports, or maybe recant what they just said now. Dummy.... Caldari Scout + Mic Squadmates + Mic Shared passive + active scans... LOL Wanna disable mics?! Some of us do use our mics properly
PLAYSTTION Universal Allies Inc. 91	Posted - 2014.04.15 12:29:00 - [64] - Quote Alldin Kan wrote: Assuming that it fires 12 projectiles: Lower damage by at least 30% for both shotguns Increase optimal range to 6 m Lower clip size to 6 no bad idea wait.... the shotgun is OP??? -Open Beta Vet 20 mil sp- Laser+Flaylock Dust 514 recruitment link here.
Toby Flenderson research lab 504	Posted - 2014.04.15 15:55:00 - [65] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: No it hasn't. There has been no reliable evidence at ALL presented here. A couple of scrubs on the forums don't count as evidence. Want to prove it to everyone? Make a recording. Oh you have no evidence, then you will excuse me if I don't believe a couple of forum go'ers. Haha you're going to feel so silly when you realize we're all right. It's like riding the bus and the person sitting next to you saying "the bus driver is a man". Easier thing to confirm, just look. Raising controversy about how the person could prove it you is a waste of time when you could just look yourself. There is no tree fallig and no one is there to hear if it makes a sound. The tree fell and there were many of us there to here it make a sound and you just weren't invited. If you want to sit around waiting for the next tree to fall then be my guest, but don't try to raise controversy on the matter when the rest of us were there to see/hear it for ourselves. TL;DR: just because it has not been seen by you does not mean that it remains unconfirmed. It's been confirmed by everyone that has observed it happen. There is no room for it to be false just because you haven't seen it. Clearly y simply just don trust me, so I invite you to stop telling people it's false until you see it for yourself since that's apparently the only way truth merges out of the world.
Zahle Undt Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 1358	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:01:00 - [66] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: Uhh... ok so I guess CCP is lying then: CCP wrote: * Shared passive scanner vision for squads disabled (results of active scanners are still shared with squads) from here If they are being shared, file a bug report because they should not be. I wonder if : Flyingconejo NAV HIV DozersMouse XIII Adipem Nothi Toby Flenderson are going to file bug reports, or maybe recant what they just said now. LOL you think CCP knows what the **** is going on in their own game!? Thanks I needed the chuckle today. Anyways, passive scans are certainly being shared and I like it that way. It makes a scout within and near your squad a great commodity to have for more reasons than killing potential. Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
Umma Kabula Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 21	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:22:00 - [67] - Quote I have a question to SG users that put sp in proficiency.. I have lv. 2 ATM, would it be of any use to get it at a higher level? Am I really going to OHK more suits or the damage increase is not worth it? Because as it is now I can't OHK even a lot of scout suits... thnx for all the fish! Umma Kabula, Wolfgang Tee Funk, Il Gallo Cedrone. Sono uno e trino.
Magnus Amadeuss Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 840	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:25:00 - [68] - Quote Toby Flenderson wrote: Magnus Amadeuss wrote: No it hasn't. There has been no reliable evidence at ALL presented here. A couple of scrubs on the forums don't count as evidence. Want to prove it to everyone? Make a recording. Oh you have no evidence, then you will excuse me if I don't believe a couple of forum go'ers. Haha you're going to feel so silly when you realize we're all right. It's like riding the bus and the person sitting next to you saying "the bus driver is a man". Easier thing to confirm, just look. Raising controversy about how the person could prove it you is a waste of time when you could just look yourself. There is no tree fallig and no one is there to hear if it makes a sound. The tree fell and there were many of us there to here it make a sound and you just weren't invited. If you want to sit around waiting for the next tree to fall then be my guest, but don't try to raise controversy on the matter when the rest of us were there to see/hear it for ourselves. TL;DR: just because it has not been seen by you does not mean that it remains unconfirmed. It's been confirmed by everyone that has observed it happen. There is no room for it to be false just because you haven't seen it. Clearly y simply just don trust me, so I invite you to stop telling people it's false until you see it for yourself since that's apparently the only way truth merges out of the world. So we just learned two things: 1) you are no scientist, and do not have a scientific mind. If an observation is not repeatable, it is thrown out. Luckily enough, there are other forum go'ers who are attempting to figure out exactly how to reproduce it. 2) Your english composition is also horrible. Seriously I could barely read what you just wrote. Listen, if I were to believe what a couple of people just said, I guess aliens and bigfoot must be real. I need evidence and fortunately enough another forum go'er will reproduce it and post a video of it. I myself was not able to produce it so far, but it may be a bunch of different circumstances that have to occur to make it happen. Maybe you can not reproduce it using an amarr scout..... In the end though nothing changes the fact that it is not intended, it is OP, and if it is occurring, bug reports should be submitted. Unless of course you saw the crouch/sprint overheat bug as a "feature" or the melee bug, or the ammo bug. Fixing swarms
Zahle Undt Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 1360	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:40:00 - [69] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: I myself was not able to produce it so far, but it may be a bunch of different circumstances that have to occur to make it happen. Maybe you can not reproduce it using an amarr scout..... In the end though nothing changes the fact that it is not intended, it is OP, and if it is occurring, bug reports should be submitted. Unless of course you saw the crouch/sprint overheat bug as a "feature" or the melee bug, or the ammo bug. If it helps you reproduce, I tend to notice it mainly when I am in the vicinity of a scout squadmate. And personally I think squad vision should be shared on tacnet or at the very least the scout vision. Like I said, makes the scout useful for more than just being an assassin and it rewards squad play. Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
Yan Darn Science For Death 608	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:54:00 - [70] - Quote So shotguns pre-1.8 = shotguns not OP, need HD fixing. Shotguns get a nerf in 1.8 = Shotguns are OPzzzz!!1n And Passive scanning pre 1.8 = lul wut? who uses passive scans? 1.8 = ....well, you get the picture Seriously, witch hunt much? Were you all just too scared to speak out against our OP passive scans and shotguns pre 1.8? I ask that when people whine about scouts - ask yourself: 1: Were scouts (able) to do this before 1.8? 2: Did I think scouts were uncompetitive before 1.8? If the answer to both is 'yes' then at least give it 5mins thought about what exactly did change in 1.8. Although looking at some posts in this and other threads screams - 'durrr I not know about the puny suit, because is puny, but my not puny suit not as good at killy stuff no more - but puny suit now better at killy stuff!???? Nnnnarrrgh! Not fair! NOT FAIR!!!!' The Ghost of Bravo

Zahle Undt Bullet Cluster Lokun Listamenn 1361	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:15:00 - [71] - Quote Yan Darn wrote: So shotguns pre-1.8 = shotguns not OP, need HD fixing. Shotguns get a nerf in 1.8 = Shotguns are OPzzzz!!1n And Passive scanning pre 1.8 = lul wut? who uses passive scans? 1.8 = ....well, you get the picture Seriously, witch hunt much? Were you all just too scared to speak out against our OP passive scans and shotguns pre 1.8? I ask that when people whine about scouts - ask yourself: 1: Were scouts (able) to do this before 1.8? 2: Did I think scouts were uncompetitive before 1.8? If the answer to both is 'yes' then at least give it 5mins thought about what exactly did change in 1.8. Although looking at some posts in this and other threads screams - 'durrr I not know about the puny suit, because is puny, but my not puny suit not as good at killy stuff no more - but puny suit now better at killy stuff!???? Nnnnarrrgh! Not fair! NOT FAIR!!!!' LOL I know for a FACT scout suits were competitive before 1.8, but you all did a number on public perception of the class prior to 1.8 that even tankers should be impressed by The meta war of Dust 514 takes place right here in the forums. Its the war of public opinion, make something seem woefully UP until the half-wits at CCP buff it to OP. So far it has worked for heavies, tanks, and scouts. Assault players are fighting their battles as we speak. I may have to do the same for commandos, but honestly no one gives a **** about commandos Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
Lynn Beck Wake N' Bake Inc Top Men. 1174	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:25:00 - [72] - Quote My ONLY complaint about shotties is that they fire out of cloak, and they do a tad much on damage: when a tanked medframe and a scout take the same # of shots, i find it borderline OP. There's a reason te Breach exists. General John Ripper is my 2nd best friend!
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 2861	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:42:00 - [73] - Quote Ask yourself these questions: 1) Were shotguns a problem before 1.8? 2) Were shotguns improved in 1.8? If you have any experience or knowledge of shotguns, you know the answer to both these questions is no. What changed to make shotguns a problem in 1.8? Cloaks. That is all. So sort them out and we're back (nearly) to where shotguns were pre-1.8; just alright and not OP at all. Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot Scout community is the nuts
Toby Flenderson research lab 508	Posted - 2014.04.15 23:20:00 - [74] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: Toby Flenderson wrote: Magnus Amadeuss wrote: No it hasn't. There has been no reliable evidence at ALL presented here. A couple of scrubs on the forums don't count as evidence. Want to prove it to everyone? Make a recording. Oh you have no evidence, then you will excuse me if I don't believe a couple of forum go'ers. Haha you're going to feel so silly when you realize we're all right. It's like riding the bus and the person sitting next to you saying "the bus driver is a man". Easier thing to confirm, just look. Raising controversy about how the person could prove it you is a waste of time when you could just look yourself. There is no tree fallig and no one is there to hear if it makes a sound. The tree fell and there were many of us there to here it make a sound and you just weren't invited. If you want to sit around waiting for the next tree to fall then be my guest, but don't try to raise controversy on the matter when the rest of us were there to see/hear it for ourselves. TL;DR: just because it has not been seen by you does not mean that it remains unconfirmed. It's been confirmed by everyone that has observed it happen. There is no room for it to be false just because you haven't seen it. Clearly y simply just don trust me, so I invite you to stop telling people it's false until you see it for yourself since that's apparently the only way truth merges out of the world. So we just learned two things: 1) you are no scientist, and do not have a scientific mind. If an observation is not repeatable, it is thrown out. Luckily enough, there are other forum go'ers who are attempting to figure out exactly how to reproduce it. 2) Your english composition is also horrible. Seriously I could barely read what you just wrote. Listen, if I were to believe what a couple of people just said, I guess aliens and bigfoot must be real. I need evidence and fortunately enough another forum go'er will reproduce it and post a video of it. I myself was not able to produce it so far, but it may be a bunch of different circumstances that have to occur to make it happen. Maybe you can not reproduce it using an amarr scout..... In the end though nothing changes the fact that it is not intended, it is OP, and if it is occurring, bug reports should be submitted. Unless of course you saw the crouch/sprint overheat bug as a "feature" or the melee bug, or the ammo bug. If I post anything before 6:30 on weekdays then it's from an iPhone while I'm on break at work. The phone lags/misses characters/auto corrects what I type and it comes out jumbled. I also just don't care enough to fix certain mistakes, it's a video game forum. I have a BS in physics and almost my MA in applied mathematics. I understand how science works. However, this is not science in any respectable sense. Calling the confirmation of shared passive scans "science" is like calling the confirmation that there is a period at the end of this sentence "science". All that you need is one account of true/false and the question is answered. There is no control, experiment, or data. It's literally as easy as waiting for the end of this sentence to see if there is or isn't a period. Also it's really pretty ridiculous to compare something like the existence of passive scan sharing and the existence of Bigfoot. I'm assuming you're not actually that stupid to think they're the same, but are instead just trying to make my claims appear no less ridiculous. You can't simply find Bigfoot by logging onto dust and watching your radar when a teammate approaches an enemy. Also, science is not in the business of proving the non-existence of things. There is no scientific experiment that could prove that a magical tea cup too small to be seen with a microscope isn't orbiting the sun somewhere in the astroid belt. You missed the point of my post entirely, just as with my posts in other threads. My point was that saying just because I don't have evidence in the form of a video or picture that my hair is brown doesn't make it any less true no matter how much anyone wants to believe it is/isn't and no matter how OP/UP brown hair is. It's brown regardless of opinion. You just have to look. I actually think it's kind of funny that you're criticizing me for not being scientifically savvy while you are tripping over yourself to see that squad vision is shared. Get a friend and have him run mods. If you have no friends, watch other players in your squad. Get creative. Think like a scientist. Also, this has been a feature for months. People have mentioned it in the forums countless times. People mentioned it when the scout suits were coming out. CCP knows that squad vision is shared. I don't need to file a ticket letting them know this. They simply don't think it's worth addressing. I'd argue that with all of the consideration they had given scouts leading up to 1.8, they must've decided to leave it in to work as intended.
deepfried salad gilliam Sanguine Knights 653	Posted - 2014.04.15 23:53:00 - [75] - Quote Magnus Amadeuss wrote: Uhh... ok so I guess CCP is lying then: CCP wrote: * Shared passive scanner vision for squads disabled (results of active scanners are still shared with squads) from here If they are being shared, file a bug report because they should not be. I wonder if : Flyingconejo NAV HIV DozersMouse XIII Adipem Nothi Toby Flenderson are going to file bug reports, or maybe recant what they just said now. it could have been changed back, that was 1.4 It'll help define roles, i promise:)
Medical Crash CLONES AGAINST HUMANITY 270	Posted - 2014.04.17 18:54:00 - [76] - Quote Shotguns do not need to be nerfed, the scouts dampning is the problem. If they are able to get that close to you, with very few ways to scan them, then we have a problem. Notice how very few claimed "shotguns OP!" before 1.8 hit. Also, that's bull if Passive Scans are shared, that's a bug, and should be fixed. Only Active Scanners should share intel with squad. WIth the amount of Cons it has, Active Scanners only and not passive should be shared.
Medical Crash CLONES AGAINST HUMANITY 270	Posted - 2014.04.17 18:55:00 - [77] - Quote Flyingconejo wrote: Medical Crash wrote: Flyingconejo wrote: No, I just said that a scout that made the proper compromises should be able to avoid being detected. I also said that those compromises are not high enough right now due to the cloak giving an unnecessary 25% bonus to dampening. ....more things... Medical Crash wrote: A viable counter should exist for everything Agreed. Scouts happen to be the counter to scanners. And the thread was about the shotgun, which in my opinion are mostly fine. If you want to continue QQing about your scanner, create your own thread. Partially correct; The Duvolle Focused Active Scanner with the Gal Logi bonus should see everyone. What balances it is the insanely long cooldown, and the short time enemies stay on radar. You know Scouts Dampning is too low, but you just want your crutch to last as long as possible. I don't even want to run scout at this point, it's too easy, instead I'm in the trenches as a Gal/Minny Logi trying to keep my teammates alive. If a squad is facing many, many scouts, counter scans are needed, and there being only 1 viable scanner- requiring you to carry nearly 4 of em to keep the scan semi constant is ridiculous. I am too scared to argue with another player online, therefore, I shall quit posting to preserve my e-peen. GOOD DAY SIR! I SAY GOOD DAY! o7
Sad Heavy Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 30	Posted - 2014.04.17 19:17:00 - [78] - Quote Jakar Umbra wrote: Of course everyone says shotguns are fine, it's not like there isn't a RoF bug or anything... You're right, there I'm also pretty sure there isn't a rate of fire bug. In fact, my proficiency skill to increase my RoF was taken away. Now I'm stuck with this bonus damage to shields, oh how I miss my old shotty.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2707	Posted - 2014.04.17 19:58:00 - [79] - Quote Magnus, you're in PCLAS. Go talk to Ceej Mantis/have someone direct you to him (he hangs around in PIE GC a lot and is reasonably well known by the PCLASers. He is very proud of his 53m scan radius, which he has had for a few months now. ak.0 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak. I speak for the trees.


Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page