Except the fact that several of the projectile options are non-explosive types, and the explosives specifically reference the kind of tech you're describing as being required for the charge to be effective in such a small projectile.

http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Projectile_ammunition

Hmm, the only ones that don't have an explosive component are direct energy conversion (proton and plasma).

Flak cannons are an autocannon, and there is more need for them to have a proper AA turret than there is for a redundant machine gun-like role which the blasters fill.

Weapons don't have to be single-purpose

They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything.

They'd be better if they were, because then there'd be counters to a given playstyle since it can't do everything.

Since when does "multi-purpose" mean "best at everything" though?

I never said "best."

I'm fine with things able to step into a role it's not intended for, such as railguns shooting infantry, they just need to be severely restricted in doing so. I want to see autocannons be the AA turret because we have no other dedicated AA turret out of any of the other categories. Let them attack other targets, but be pathetic in doing so. They don't have to only be able to shoot at aerial targets, but they can't overshadow any of the others if you branch out into using them in different roles (they shouldn't even be close). That's what I mean by single-purpose.

Re-read my suggestion for Autocannons.

Done right, it could provide pretty much exactly what you're asking.

Autocannons should be for anti-air, firing fast traveling, long range explosive rounds. Ideally, they would be a high-damage splash effect like a flak cannon, and have their rounds triggered to explode if passing within a certain proximity of aerial vehicles (like the AV grenade magnetic trigger). Direct damage should still be possible if used against ground vehicles, but should be on the lower end of damage output, and should really only act as suppression against infantry, not something that is going to wipe the floor with them.

What I'm asking is this:



Taken from the end of the 2nd post in this thread:

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=34834

It's not a hybrid-purpose proposal. It's a desire to see a specifically AA weapon, because we need one (especially when faster aircraft come in). It can still spit out damage at other things if you're forced into a position to fight back, but you're not going to outdamage other people using really anything else. There's no need for the AA weapon to be capable of heavy anti-ground or anti-infantry support. It should ding things up, but never be the go-to weapon for those roles.

Weapons, especially vehicle turrets, need clearly defined roles. They need to excel at something and be capable of being countered by something else. Bring out your AA tank? Have fun dealing with ground forces. Bring out the AV one? Good luck when you're swarmed by infantry. Got the AI one? That AV tank or dropship is going to eat you.

Because we want people to use blasters for once.

Honestly, it doesn't sound significantly different from what I was suggesting.

Explosive weapon, auto-detonates at a certain range with a good blast radius and most of its damage as blast damage rather than direct damage. Main difference is that I suggested different variants of the weapon having different range and blast radius. Did you even read my post before reposting your own? You could have just pointed out that I was saying very similar things to what you were.

If you want people to use blasters, why does this thread suggest heavily nerfing them?