| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
![[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]](https://forums.dust514.com/themes/ccpDust514/dust-avatar-128.png "[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]")
[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]
0
   |
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
The idea that a mega weapon like the Forge or Swarm could detonate right next to you and not kill you is silly.
I propose we make is cost more to equip. LiMit the users ability to add shield/speed/repAir boosters and they become much easier to kill and more susceptible to their own splash damaGe. Make it so running a Swarm Launcher in a Scout suit in CQC is death for the user because of self inflicted splash damage and the problem solves its self. |
[Veteran_Mobius Wyvern]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Youknowutimsayin wrote:The idea that a mega weapon like the Forge or Swarm could detonate right next to you and not kill you is silly.
I propose we make is cost more to equip. LiMit the users ability to add shield/speed/repAir boosters and they become much easier to kill and more susceptible to their own splash damaGe. Make it so running a Swarm Launcher in a Scout suit in CQC is death for the user because of self inflicted splash damage and the problem solves its self.
The Swarm Launcher part of this is a no-brainer, and I'd love if it worked that way, but something tells me friendly fire is staying off in order to stem the tide of stupidity that would result from a small group of the people in the beta right now. |
[Veteran_Johnny Guilt]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
he said the M word, i saw that post edit |
[Veteran_MUDMASTEI2]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. |
[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Johnny Guilt wrote:he said the M word, i saw that post edit
wut?  |
[Veteran_MUDMASTEI2]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
MAG. |
[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy.
It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry. |
[Veteran_Phantom Humperdink]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Youknowutimsayin wrote:MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry.
It doesn't make sense my Dropsuit has no eye holes, but here we are. |
[Veteran_Legendary Ecko]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:I propose we make is cost more to equip. LiMit the users ability to add shield/speed/repAir boosters and they become much easier to kill and more susceptible to their own splash damaGe. Make it so running a Swarm Launcher in a Scout suit in CQC is death for the user because of self inflicted splash damage and the problem solves its self.
  |
[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Phantom Humperdink wrote:Youknowutimsayin wrote:MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry. It doesn't make sense my Dropsuit has no eye holes, but here we are.
I don't know why but that has me CTFU right now. |
|
|
[Veteran_Tristan Kauls]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
GAMES ARE NOT REAL LIFE gameplay>realism
sorry for the all caps but i just hate the "realism" arguments
I mean when was the last time u traveled through a wormhole. Or when was the last time youre concuisness was transferred to another body.. |
[Veteran_Ray Leo]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
Phantom Humperdink wrote:Youknowutimsayin wrote:MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry. It doesn't make sense my Dropsuit has no eye holes, but here we are.
Super advanceed GPS technology..... or a camera duct taped to your chest |
[Veteran_Kain Spero]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
Phantom Humperdink wrote:
It doesn't make sense my Dropsuit has no eye holes, but here we are.
Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see. |
[Veteran_Youknowutimsayin]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ray Leo wrote:Phantom Humperdink wrote:Youknowutimsayin wrote:MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry. It doesn't make sense my Dropsuit has no eye holes, but here we are. Super advanceed GPS technology..... or a camera duct taped to your chest
Its like Google Street View for clones.... you're not seeing the battle field you're seeing a screen inside your helmet.
Explains the input lag. |
[Veteran_Khazra Khali'un]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
I actually wrote up a post a while back about how reducing the splash on swarm launchers vs infantry actually makes sense. The TL;DR version of it is that an anti vehicle missile would have the majority of its explosive payload located and directed straight forward, minimizing it's splash damage in order to optimize it's ability to puncture through armor. Thus, only a direct hit would destroy a dropsuit, which is a mini vehicle in and of itself.
As for Forge Guns, same business, they simply have a huge blast of energy in a concentrated beam, focusing all it's energy on a single point to maximize damage to enemy armor. |
[Veteran_MUDMASTEI2]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:09:00 -
[16] - Quote
Youknowutimsayin wrote:MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry.
Who cares, video gameism > realism. It's more fun to not have everyone have one hit kill explosions. |
[Veteran_JAM0322]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
In the spirit of full disclosure i play a heavy, i've been in beta two weeks now. I don't really understand the forge hate tbh, of all the guns in the game i probably die to it the least. It's a PITA to get a bead on any infantry that isnt stationary, and even if i hit close enough to damage with splash it doesn't register damage half the time. At minimum, baring the rare direct hit, it's going to take me 5-7.5 seconds to kill any infantry that isn't a militia geared scout. I've been killed in less time by a well aimed AR or another heavy with an HMG for that matter.
Granted my experience here is limited, but of all the guns that are a threat to infantry this one seems the least. At best i've scored 15 kills in a match with one, and that only really happens when there are a good number of vehicles running around. If the match is mostly infantry on foot I may get 6-8. Is there some secret group of heavies racking up monster numbers of kills with this thing that i'm just not aware of? Are full proto geared forge guns just that much more powerful that they one shot everyone regardless of a direct hit? |
[Veteran_GM Unicorn]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
Moved to the feedback/requests section so we can use the thread as a proper feedback...or nuke it if it's too messy  |
[Veteran_Buzzwords]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Youknowutimsayin wrote:MUDMASTEI2 wrote:And then you make them have to be standing still facing a vehicle to blow it up.
Pass.
Nerf the damage against infantry, keep the same or increase it against vehicles. It's that easy. It doesn't make sense that a weapon that can destroy an armoured vehicle wouldn't kill infantry.
actually, yes it does.
most munitions designed to defeat armor use some system to FOCUS it's blast onto a single point. for example, an anti-armor warhead on the ubiquitous russian rpg uses a shaped charge behind a bit of lead. when it hits the armor the charge goes off, the lead melts into a narrow "lance" and the explosion forces it through the armor. all the force of the explosion is put into a centimeter squared size area of the armor. aside from the pressure wave (which, admittedly, irl is certainly enough to kill you at close range. but this isn't real life) there is very little shrapnel and therefore "splash damage"
on an anti infantry warhead, the explosive would be centralized in the warhead, and surrounded by a good deal more metal on all sides. the explosion would scatter this shrapnel in all directions, but with considerably less force. still enough to kill a human being, but it would bounce off thick armor. that would be "splash damage"
there ARE such things as dual purpose munitions, which would include something like the iron lance, surrounded by a sheath of shrapnel, but by allowing the explosion to spread in all directions, it sacrifices some of the focused punch of a true AT weapon. |
[Veteran_Gene Dravon]
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Buzzwords wrote:
there ARE such things as dual purpose munitions, which would include something like the iron lance, surrounded by a sheath of shrapnel, but by allowing the explosion to spread in all directions, it sacrifices some of the focused punch of a true AT weapon.
I like where that is going actually. Offer different types of swarm launchers, one with shaped charges that do very little splash damage, but with significantly higher direct damage, and then offer anti-infantry swarm launchers with significantly less damage, but a larger splash radius. Not that Im a Realism-**** with a sci fi game, but it does make a lot more logical sense when put in terms of shaped vs non-shaped charges. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |