Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Text Grant
PIanet Express Smart Deploy
390
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 13:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
The current state of assault swarms is logically pointless. Halfing your dps is rarely a good idea. There are a few things that would make these more useful.
1 add knock back to them. Enough to flip a LAV and disrupt a dropship
2 increase range to 250m
3 make them lock on faster
4 make it a sidearm that is smaller and fires 2 missiles instead of 4
5 speed up flight of missiles
I personally like the combination of 2 and 3 because it allows the swarmer to fire back at the vehicles that use speed and range to kill infantry that have hopes of performing an AV role |
Text Grant
PIanet Express Smart Deploy
393
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 01:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved |
Boss SobanRe
Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
1. Knock back ? For starters its already in place 1a. - On Lavs. They are already gimped enough from Echo. Less native shields/armor ;softer shieldd regen, much easier to take out now. swarms dont need any more help here enough drivers at full speed can flip the LAV on their own without the help of AV
1b - On Dropships, they already disrupt flight path when the DS is at a hovering pace assuming that when its attacking yes? therby disrupting most pilots ability to attack. ANY i repeat ANY AV projectile that hits already disrupts the attack. At least for a while. Some swarm attacks have been known to knock ships into buildings!
2. Increase range? the range of swarms is already at 400m atm....450m if its officer... maybe your talking about lock on range? I think a long lock on range its been done before and reduced for good reason. Thats just too much coverage on objectives. Imagine trying to close the distance with any vehicle an overly long lock on range would be too imbalanced.
On tangent: I can see how like the assault variant as compared to most variants assault usually means more range. but you get more range for less damage. or more shots for less damage. but for swarming we don't want gimped damage do we?
3. I agree with you here lock on speed needs to be as fast as the vanilla swarm with perhaps some tweaks to less missles fired or something. or perhaps a slightly faster lock on time than vanilla to give it a more assaulty feel or reward me for having an increased lock on time.
4.a sidearm? why a sidearm? a flaylock that locks? .shooting 6 missles already isnt good enough? could you elaborate more on this? I dont think they have the assets to change this.
5. Swarmer speed is more than adequate now, as they can already accelerate faster and hit even with AB/injectors (arguably negating them) engaged. Provided there is no cover of course.
In truth, I'm not a good shot....I'm just really, really lucky!
-Boss Sobanre
|
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken
Going for the gold
1015
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 08:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
I would LOVE an AV sidearm...
Found my favorite DJ - ATB
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7727
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 09:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:The current state of assault swarms is logically pointless. Halfing your dps is rarely a good idea. There are a few things that would make these more useful.
1 add knock back to them. Enough to flip a LAV and disrupt a dropship
2 increase range to 250m
3 make them lock on faster
4 make it a sidearm that is smaller and fires 2 missiles instead of 4
5 speed up flight of missiles
I personally like the combination of 2 and 3 because it allows the swarmer to fire back at the vehicles that use speed and range to kill infantry that have hopes of performing an AV role
Let us read from the book of NO.
Chapter NO.
Verse NO.
"And the voices concerned with keeping balanced and engaging game play looked down from on high, and thus did they sayeth: NO."
AV
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express Smart Deploy
395
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 12:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Boss SobanRe wrote:1. Knock back ? For starters its already in place 1a. - On Lavs. They are already gimped enough from Echo. Less native shields/armor ;softer shieldd regen, much easier to take out now. swarms dont need any more help here enough drivers at full speed can flip the LAV on their own without the help of AV
1b - On Dropships, they already disrupt flight path when the DS is at a hovering pace assuming that when its attacking yes? therby disrupting most pilots ability to attack. ANY i repeat ANY AV projectile that hits already disrupts the attack. At least for a while. Some swarm attacks have been known to knock ships into buildings!
2. Increase range? the range of swarms is already at 400m atm....450m if its officer... maybe your talking about lock on range? I think a long lock on range its been done before and reduced for good reason. Thats just too much coverage on objectives. Imagine trying to close the distance with any vehicle an overly long lock on range would be too imbalanced.
On tangent: I can see how like the assault variant as compared to most variants assault usually means more range. but you get more range for less damage. or more shots for less damage. but for swarming we don't want gimped damage do we?
3. I agree with you here lock on speed needs to be as fast as the vanilla swarm with perhaps some tweaks to less missles fired or something. or perhaps a slightly faster lock on time than vanilla to give it a more assaulty feel or reward me for having an increased lock on time.
4.a sidearm? why a sidearm? a flaylock that locks? .shooting 6 missles already isnt good enough? could you elaborate more on this? I dont think they have the assets to change this.
5. Swarmer speed is more than adequate now, as they can already accelerate faster and hit even with AB/injectors (arguably negating them) engaged. Provided there is no cover of course. 1a I really believe if proto cars are introduced, this would be needed. I currently insta pop cars because they are never anything other than BPO. 1b I can't agree with you here. Dropships currently stay quite stable during swarm impact. Stable enough to fire small rails accurately as 100+ meters back at you. 2current lock on range is 175 meters. The old lock on range was 300. If this point was chosen I was asking for 250. This would only allow the swarmer to lock on far enough away to keep vehicles from sitting at the 200 meter mark and sniping the AV. 3 perhaps even faster lock on, less damage, and one extra in the clip, so it's the same damage in the clip, but more forgiving 4 6 missiles??? Swarms are all 4 missiles now. A sidearm isn't really something I want, but it would be one way to make assault swarms useful instead of their current state. Yes, like a double barrel flaylock that locks on. 5 I disagree because dropships outrun swarms without even turning on afterburners half the time.
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
8867
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 21:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Let us read from the book of NO.
Chapter NO.
Verse NO.
"And the voices concerned with keeping balanced and engaging game play looked down from on high, and thus did they sayeth: NO."
So you think that the Assault Swarms are fine?
What would YOU suggest be changed to make them viable?
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
Mad Syringe
ReDust Inc.
677
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 22:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Why not just remove them from the game? We don't need them right now! |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1434
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 03:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:1b I can't agree with you here. Dropships currently stay quite stable during swarm impact. Stable enough to fire small rails accurately as 100+ meters back at you. Ahhhh-hahahahahaha!
Such sweet, ridiculous lies...
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7745
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 03:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Let us read from the book of NO.
Chapter NO.
Verse NO.
"And the voices concerned with keeping balanced and engaging game play looked down from on high, and thus did they sayeth: NO."
So you think that the Assault Swarms are fine? What would YOU suggest be changed to make them viable? A mechanical overhaul orof the swarm launchers in general.
AV
|
|
nelo kazuma
Da Short Buss Driving School
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 14:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
Id rather see a breach variant do that twice the lock on time double the damage slower travel speed to make it not op. assault variant should have better lock on range to compensate for slow lock on time and maybe increase in missles but less damage per missle making them viable for multiple vehiches but still not op for lav or dropships |
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
8894
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 15:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Let us read from the book of NO.
Chapter NO.
Verse NO.
"And the voices concerned with keeping balanced and engaging game play looked down from on high, and thus did they sayeth: NO."
So you think that the Assault Swarms are fine? What would YOU suggest be changed to make them viable? A mechanical overhaul orof the swarm launchers in general. That is fine, but that is out of the scope of the discussion.
The fact is, ASl is one of the worst, if not THE worst weapon in the game, and it needs looking at.
nelo kazuma wrote:Id rather see a breach variant do that twice the lock on time double the damage slower travel speed to make it not op. assault variant should have better lock on range to compensate for slow lock on time and maybe increase in missles but less damage per missle making them viable for multiple vehiches but still not op for lav or dropships How does that make them viable?
Swarms themselves are already pointless against HAVs, how would reduced damage AND half damage as a result of the ASL would make them no more viable than they are now, which is to say not at all viable.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
Derpty Derp
Dead Man's Game
950
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 16:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
I've had my LAV flipped over by swarms a few times... If it happened every time, I wouldn't bother using an LAV.
physics have glitches, if up the force, then think what's gonna happen when it glitches "cya later bro's I'm taking this LAV to Spaaaaaaaaaaaaace..." |
Shamarskii Simon
The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion.
242
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 16:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
AV sidearm doesn't sound bad, half damage, double lock time. Slower than old swarms, limited ammo.
Entering the void and becoming wind.
Message for 1v1 air to air
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7756
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 07:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Increasing the impact of any AV WEAPONS will badly screw vvehicles. Period.
I have bounced dropships off of buildings (routinely) and if you shoot the nose or aft end of a dropshop mid-high-speed maneuver you can send them irreirrevocably oyt of control and force them to crash.
So allowing swarm impacts the force to flip vehicles is a bad idea.
AV
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express Smart Deploy
397
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 10:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Increasing the impact of any AV WEAPONS will badly screw vvehicles. Period.
I have bounced dropships off of buildings (routinely) and if you shoot the nose or aft end of a dropshop mid-high-speed maneuver you can send them irreirrevocably oyt of control and force them to crash.
So allowing swarm impacts the force to flip vehicles is a bad idea. So you finally provide reasoning as to why you don't like one of the 5 suggestions. I was beginning to believe you a troll. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
7757
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 11:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Increasing the impact of any AV WEAPONS will badly screw vvehicles. Period.
I have bounced dropships off of buildings (routinely) and if you shoot the nose or aft end of a dropshop mid-high-speed maneuver you can send them irreirrevocably oyt of control and force them to crash.
So allowing swarm impacts the force to flip vehicles is a bad idea. So you finally provide reasoning as to why you don't like one of the 5 suggestions. I was beginning to believe you a troll. I am. But the best way to troll people on the dust Forums is actually to use verifiable facts. Everyone goes insane yeyelling "nuh-uh you're a wrong poopyhead!"
Right now the assault swarm lacks a niche because swarms in general are very difficult to balance. Until th e wiki swarms are properly set up anything we do to the assault swarms is a balancing crapshoot. Could be overpowered, could be useless and the window for balance on the weapons is comparatively tiny because of the way they work.
AV
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express Smart Deploy
398
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 12:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Text Grant wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:Increasing the impact of any AV WEAPONS will badly screw vvehicles. Period.
I have bounced dropships off of buildings (routinely) and if you shoot the nose or aft end of a dropshop mid-high-speed maneuver you can send them irreirrevocably oyt of control and force them to crash.
So allowing swarm impacts the force to flip vehicles is a bad idea. So you finally provide reasoning as to why you don't like one of the 5 suggestions. I was beginning to believe you a troll. I am. But the best way to troll people on the dust Forums is actually to use verifiable facts. Everyone goes insane yeyelling "nuh-uh you're a wrong poopyhead!" Right now the assault swarm lacks a niche because swarms in general are very difficult to balance. Until th e wiki swarms are properly set up anything we do to the assault swarms is a balancing crapshoot. Could be overpowered, could be useless and the window for balance on the weapons is comparatively tiny because of the way they work. If that's the case, then remove large blaster turrets, and assault dropships. They arnt the problem, I know. (Blasters should have instant dispersion and tanks and dropships need an acceleration nerf IMO) but this seems to be your stance on AV so I don't see a reason not to spread the love |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |