|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
   |
Posted - 2013.01.03 17:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Well IGÇÖve spent the last few weeks specialising into Swarm Launchers to try & give some constructive feedback to the community. But I see there are a couple of threads (ignoring the playground flamers) that have given some feedback already.
Anyway, being IGÇÖve done the work & tried each variant in several games, IGÇÖll post my findings anyway. This will be a lot of text as I try to give my own objective, constructive & detailed feedback on the Swarm Launcher as a weapon class. :o)
First off, letGÇÖs dispel a couple of myths that are floating around: -
Swarm Launchers can not lock on to vehicles that are hiding behind cover. In my investigation you need at least 25% of a vehicle showing before you can get a lock on, then that is a bit touch & go in itself.
This build especially, swarm missiles can not do any crazy manoeuvres to reach their target. They are not very smart, much to my annoyance on occasions!
I know there are rumours of missiles winding around buildings, putting on fake moustaches & pretending to be delivering pizzas in order to hit their target. But in my experience, that is simply not the case. If a missile is within a few meters of its target then it might seem to do a crazy move to follow you behind cover, but it is just following your signature path as you move.
If you are encountering any of these issues in your game, then I would suggest there are other factors affecting the game such as possible lag or whatever.
My view on the Swarm Launcher is that it is literally a light infantry Anti Vehicle Weapon that is more for close quarter combat with vehicles rather than long distance.
It is primarily for quick engagement GÇô fire, forget & run away! :o)
As such, I have skilled up in my side arm, to fight any infantry support units the tank may have.
My particular tactic is to sneak up close to a HAV, throw a couple of flux grenades to weaken the shields & then start the onslaught from my Swarm launcher. Nothing more enjoyable than seeing a lone soldier chasing a tank as it tries to speed away. :o)
Dumb firing GÇô
No, just no! :o)
Initially I was in favour of dumb firing, and was disappointed when they removed it.
However, after spending a lot of time with the swarm launchers, I can now see what a nightmare they would be.
Imagine, several campers high up on a hill, with a lonely goat herder & a couple of nanohives just blindly laying waste to the battle field with proto swarm launchersGǪand we thought drop ships launchers were a problem!!
So no!! If you want dumb firing, get a mass driver or wait for the plasma cannon! :o)
But definitely no for swarms! I know people say that this is needed for anti-infantry, but swarm launchers arenGÇÖt for infantry theyGÇÖre anti-vehicle. Get yourself a SMG for infantry.
Locking on GÇô
One issue with Locking on I have is that, it is way too slow especially with the prototype variant, seems bizarre to me that the militia launcher can lock on quicker than a prototype weapon. So I would like the locking speed decreased throughout the levels, but also to have a variance in place. What I mean by this is that, I think the targets profile / dampening skill should affect the length of time it takes for a swarm launcher to lock on.
Launching the missiles GÇô
The actual launch is vastly improved over last build, but still just doesnGÇÖt sit right.
I feel that the missiles should be launched as one missile, and then after a couple of meters separate into however many rockets that variant launchers.
Amount of missiles GÇô
These are fine as they are, except for the militia I think needs a reduction.
Tracking Path GÇô
Again, this has improved so much since last build, but some improvement is still needed. Especially against drop ships, missiles are still trying to GÇÿget behindGÇÖ the ship rather than taking the quickest path.
Distance GÇô
This does need altering, but again I think this should be based on the variant used. Militia havenGÇÖt the lowest effective distance, while prototype/office having the longest distance.
In addition, once the missiles have actually reached their max distance & havenGÇÖt hit anything they should fall to the ground & detonate, with some splash damage rather than massive explosions.
Damage GÇô
Militia needs a big reduction, as do the lower variants, plus I think the proto needs a slight increase.
Splash Damage GÇô
Now, I know thereGÇÖs some debate on splash damage as to whether it exists for swarm launchers now and in my experience it does, and is actually working as it should.
IGÇÖm 99% sure that when IGÇÖve hit a tank, if there are infantry close by (HAV protection squads) then they have suffered damage, which is handy when I have to mop up with my SMG.
My suggestion for splash damage requires some lateral thinking here, I feel that the low tech weapons should have the greatest splash damage radius per missile but the lowest damage. Where as the high tech missiles, should have the lowest splash radius but highest damage, my thinking being they are higher tech weapons & therefore should have more focussed explosions.
Ammo GÇô
Even though a few times IGÇÖve run out of ammo in the most annoying circumstances, the ammo level is about right for all the launchers. If youGÇÖre running a swarm then you should really be carrying a nanohive so you can operate effectively.
TBC.... |
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 17:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Conclusion
Overall, as with most of the weapon classes, I think the Swarm Launcher needs a bit of an overhaul. The lower tech weapons need a bit of a nerf & the higher tech need a buff. I have to admit, I am a bit perplexed with the Tactical Launcher, itGÇÖs a nice idea having the ability to fire at two different targets. But as they are at the moment, they are a bit underpowered, however if you buff them, then they could potentially become overpowered when used just against one target. So maybe itGÇÖs best to leave them as is at the moment.
But over the last couple of weeks, I have come to love the swarm launcher, to the point that I think I will go down this route after the game is GÇÿreleasedGÇÖ. I love hunting tanks, I just wish I could afford to run Proto swarms all the time & not just on special occasions, with a particularly well built HAV is cruising the field. :o)
Righty, suggestion box time!! :o)
Taking in what IGÇÖve said above, here are my suggestions for changing the swarm launchers depending on their class: -
Militia
Max Missiles - 3
Range GÇô 200m
Damage GÇô 200
Lock on time GÇô 2.5 seconds
Splash Radius GÇô 1.5 m
Splash Damage GÇô 20 per missile
Standard
Max Missiles - 4
Range GÇô 225m
Damage GÇô 250
Lock on time GÇô 2 seconds
Splash Radius GÇô 1.25 m
Splash Damage GÇô 22 per missile
Advanced GÇô
Max Missiles - 5
Range GÇô 250m
Damage GÇô 300
Lock on time GÇô 1.5 seconds
Splash Radius GÇô 1 m
Splash Damage GÇô 30 per missile
Prototype GÇô
Max Missiles - 6
Range GÇô 300m
Damage GÇô 350
Lock on time GÇô 1 seconds
Splash Radius GÇô 0.8 m
Splash Damage GÇô 35 per missile
Locking without raising your weapon should add an extra 0.5 seconds to the time.
For the special variants that cost less resources, but increase lock on times.
I would suggest adding 0.5 seconds to which ever class they are in.
The above are the base values. So the current skills & what they affect are fine and should be applied accordingly to the above suggested stats.
As I mentioned before as well, I think the targets dampening / profile should affect the lock on times. So my suggestion is that for each level of the dampening skill the target has, it increases the lock on time for a Swarm Launcher by 20%.
An example would be a Swarm Launcher with a proto launcher going up against a HAV driver with a dampening skill of 5 would actually take two seconds to lock on instead of the usual 1 second.
Now I know what youGÇÖre all thinking, 1 second is too quick. But believe me, when youGÇÖre standing in front of a well specced HAV which is aiming its heavy blaster at your head then 1 second is an eternity!!! :o)
So thatGÇÖs my feedback, I hope you feel IGÇÖve taken an objective approach & offered some constructive suggestions.
My apologies for the length as well! :o)
|
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 13:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for the feedback so far folks!
One thing to keep in mind when I'm suggesting the damage rate changes, is that you are assuming that all missiles hit their target. This does not happen all the time, especially with the occasional wild behavior of the missiles, hitting cover etc.
Also, at greater firing distances the time to hit the target gives a chance for the target to get out of the way, hide behind cover etc etc.
In open space & at closer distance, granted there is a greater chance of all missiles hitting & getting max damage. However, bear in mind that at close range it is possible for a basic AR to do over 1800 damage in a second or so <- Please don't start flaming now about ARs or whatever. I'm using this as an example about using the potential Max Damage as a stat.
As for deserving to die, as I mentioned above I see & play the SL as a CQC AV weapon, so as soon as I throw my flux grenades & launched my first volley of missiles then I have revealed my position. So if the HAV isn't already starting to get me in it's sights, then well that HAV deserves what's coming!
As a tip for HAV drivers, I highly recommend picking up gunners for your small turrets, it will make my job much harder. Far too often I come across HAVs with just the driver, usually with a rail gun as a main turret, this leaves your HAV vulnerable.
|
Bucktooth Badger
Buck's Intergalactic Pawn Shop
65
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 10:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:
You mentioned something about locking without raising your weapon but never went into any detail on this - my first reaction is to say this sounds stupid; how can you possibly lock with a weapon without raising it to aim?
Some, if not all?, of the variants have the ability to target & lock on to a vehicle without raising your scope sight (Button L1) all youneed to do is just hold button R1 this will bring up a targeting box to find your target.
However, I *believe* there are some limitations to this, as in you can only lock targets that are closer to you & I'm pretty sure the lock on time is extended. Hence, why I suggested keeping the variance of the lock time with scope or not.
The way I see it is that with the SL selected, you are always running around with it on your shoulder but just choose whether to use the scope or not, depending on the target.
As for my suggested damage alterations, I have made this based on the long game thinking not just what we've currently got.
The militia stats will still have a significant impact on weaker LAVs & provide an annoyance to a well specc'd HAV.
Where as Proto, I think, should annihilate all but a well built LAV (there are some out there already that I need to atleast 2 shot.)
HAVs are a little more complicated, as none of them should be 1 shotted. However, a couple of flux grenades & a single volley should destroy the weakest HAVs.
But as players & their HAVs get stronger, the HAVs will again start to pull away from AV until once again they are dominating the field. Hence why I've asked for a small increase, to give an AV team that little bit of an extra chance to keep up with HAV development .... BUT still require at least 2 Skilled AV to cause some serious damage to a hardcore HAVs.
As an example, in a recent game someone was running a serious HAV, I used 2 flux grenades & 3 volleys from my proto (2 complex damage mods) & a fellow AVer hit it once/twice with an officer forge gun & we only just managed to reduce it's shields to zero. Fortunately the game ended as I think we would have been effd.
I'm not complaining, as that was a long, intense & enjoyable battle. But if there was another one of those tanks on the field we would have had less than the tiny chance we had with just the one!
So a slight increase in damage for proto would at least give the illusion of hope. |
|
|
| |
|