DUST Search - Request: Minmatar Heavy AV Weapon GÇô Mini-Flak Cannon

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Request: Minmatar Heavy AV Weapon GÇô Mini-Flak Cannon

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
XXfootnoteXX DUST University Ivy League 155	Posted - 2013.03.24 08:12:00 - [1] - Quote Developed by minmatar technicians in an attempt to create way to push back drop ships and repurposed to be a hand held weapon for front line soldiers to engage land and air vehicles. The Mini Flak cannon (commonly known as the GÇ£MF CannonGÇ¥ or a GÇ£Flaking CannonGÇ¥) operates by shooting an explosive shell that detonates after it gets near the target, this is to counter the fact the weapon is large and unwieldy for hand held use. 30mm Flak Cannon Weapon Specifics: (Standard Flak Cannon) - 120 RPM(2 RPS) - Automatic - 250 Damage per Round. (500 DPS) - 3.3m Splash 40mm Assault Flak Cannon Weapon Specifics: (High speed flak cannon, lighter than the standard variation. Wider firing zone.) - 258 RPM(4.3 RPS) - Automatic - 111 Damage per shot.(559 DPS) - 4.0m Splash 50mm Burst Flak Cannon Weapon Specifics: (Fast burst, slow rate of bursts, higher damage. Smaller firing zone.) - 180 RPM (1 Burst per second) - 3 Round Burst - 330 damage per shot.(990 DPS) - 2.6m Splash __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please feel free to help with the math!! It is not my strong suit, I also cant remember the name of the Minmatar weapons developer. I am extreamly open to any suggestions anyone has.
Hexen Trickster The Southern Legion 19	Posted - 2013.03.24 15:27:00 - [2] - Quote MF Cannon Best name ever I like the idea for another direct fire AV weapon I assume this will be a heavy weapon, all the kickback from a large projectile and whatnot
slypie11 Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 11	Posted - 2013.03.24 15:53:00 - [3] - Quote You would thing shooting a high explosive shell filled with shrapnel at high speeds would be incredibly damaging to a ground unit. Also, consider making some kind of flak/machine gun installation
Godin Thekiller KNIGHTZ OF THE ROUND 17	Posted - 2013.03.24 16:34:00 - [4] - Quote This sounds like a modified artillery turret. The low numbers show that it's not very effective at taking out heavy armored vehicles as well too. Plus, you have to be accurate with it, so.... I call this AV the first that's balanced.
Terry Webber Gothic Wars Consortium 57	Posted - 2013.03.24 19:02:00 - [5] - Quote I've been wanting a weapon like this. Makes taking down a dropship a little easier for heavies.
XXfootnoteXX DUST University Ivy League 156	Posted - 2013.03.24 21:48:00 - [6] - Quote slypie11 wrote: You would thing shooting a high explosive shell filled with shrapnel at high speeds would be incredibly damaging to a ground unit. Also, consider making some kind of flak/machine gun installation My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier.
XXfootnoteXX DUST University Ivy League 156	Posted - 2013.03.24 21:49:00 - [7] - Quote Hexen Trickster wrote: I assume this will be a heavy weapon, all the kickback from a large projectile and whatnot Yup.
Zat Earthshatter Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 306	Posted - 2013.03.24 22:16:00 - [8] - Quote A good suggestion - reminds me of the Grenade Machine-Gun in Fallout: New Vegas, and in fact that weapon uses very similar ammunition calibers (25mm and 40mm). If CCP decides to use OP's idea, they could easily use the PC version of the game (and the included GECK dev-kit) for prototyping before producing a DUST version for AV combat. I only have one gripe: the RoF should more accurately reflect the caliber - 30mm would be fastest, 50mm the slowest. For balancing, the DPS edge of the 50mm version should be less of a jump, while still having a visible edge. Lastly, the caliber should affect PG/CPU. 30mm would be your "base" model, while the 50mm would need extremely good skil
Rachoi HavoK Core 37	Posted - 2013.03.24 23:53:00 - [9] - Quote XXfootnoteXX wrote: slypie11 wrote: You would thing shooting a high explosive shell filled with shrapnel at high speeds would be incredibly damaging to a ground unit. Also, consider making some kind of flak/machine gun installation My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. as in the Proximity recievers that anti air shells use, yeah? that would be amazing! balanced too
XXfootnoteXX DUST University Ivy League 157	Posted - 2013.03.25 04:17:00 - [10] - Quote Rachoi wrote: XXfootnoteXX wrote: slypie11 wrote: You would thing shooting a high explosive shell filled with shrapnel at high speeds would be incredibly damaging to a ground unit. Also, consider making some kind of flak/machine gun installation My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. as in the Proximity recievers that anti air shells use, yeah? that would be amazing! balanced too Thats the term I couldn't think of! Thanks.

Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 628	Posted - 2013.03.25 04:49:00 - [11] - Quote There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients
Heathen Bastard Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 73	Posted - 2013.03.25 04:58:00 - [12] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients how odd that you aren't jumping all this idea for being useful against vehicles and infantry. it can be used against infantry and vehicles and is therefore is considered OP in your eyes. all you have to do to kill infantry is hit them dead on with it a couple times. and yes, I am at this point just being petty.
XXfootnoteXX DUST University Ivy League 159	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:04:00 - [13] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients shrugs Numbers can be changed, I don't care too much about that part, I just like the idea and would love to see it in game. CCP and people better at math will be able to take care of that part... I probably should not have added it though.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 628	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:06:00 - [14] - Quote Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients how odd that you aren't jumping all this idea for being useful against vehicles and infantry. it can be used against infantry and vehicles and is therefore is considered OP in your eyes. all you have to do to kill infantry is hit them dead on with it a couple times. and yes, I am at this point just being petty. It can be but since it only explodes near installations and vehicles I expect the damage against infantry when It doesn't explode to be hmg es for a tiny amount of the rof
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 40	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:07:00 - [15] - Quote well i do like the idea. first what would be the range of it? second flak works as anti-air so how would it work on HAV/LAVs third burst should be smaller rounds (30mm) while the normal rounds higher (50mm) and that would work to balance the dps and also should have a breach type maybe 60mm with a RoF of 60 fourth heat base with large belt feed mags or small clip sizes?
Valto Hynton 2100453693 Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:08:00 - [16] - Quote great idea but as it stands adding it now will make vehicles harder to use(they already die a lot of times).After vehicles life span increase a bit more i won't mind seeing this.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 629	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:09:00 - [17] - Quote XXfootnoteXX wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients shrugs Numbers can be changed, I don't care too much about that part, I just like the idea and would love to see it in game. CCP and people better at math will be able to take care of that part... I probably should not have added it though. It's absolutely ok that you gave your own field of numbers instead of making CCP do all the work, especially since you even stated in the Op you weren't sure about the numbers, but following the hmg's example, the burst would have the highest rof for substandard damage (I'll check to be sure the next time I'm on)
Heathen Bastard Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 73	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:10:00 - [18] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients how odd that you aren't jumping all this idea for being useful against vehicles and infantry. it can be used against infantry and vehicles and is therefore is considered OP in your eyes. all you have to do to kill infantry is hit them dead on with it a couple times. and yes, I am at this point just being petty. It can be but since it only explodes near installations and vehicles I expect the damage against infantry when It doesn't explode to be hmg es for a tiny amount of the rof odd, the way I'm reading is that the explosion only triggers against infantry when it actually hits them. allowing someone with good reflexes, aim, and control to effectively wipe out a squad with a few good shots.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 629	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:23:00 - [19] - Quote XXfootnoteXX wrote: My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. You were saying?
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 40	Posted - 2013.03.25 05:25:00 - [20] - Quote Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: There's too much of a dps difference in the assault and burst varients how odd that you aren't jumping all this idea for being useful against vehicles and infantry. it can be used against infantry and vehicles and is therefore is considered OP in your eyes. all you have to do to kill infantry is hit them dead on with it a couple times. and yes, I am at this point just being petty. It can be but since it only explodes near installations and vehicles I expect the damage against infantry when It doesn't explode to be hmg es for a tiny amount of the rof odd, the way I'm reading is that the explosion only triggers against infantry when it actually hits them. allowing someone with good reflexes, aim, and control to effectively wipe out a squad with a few good shots. well im guess its going to be like the sniper rifle no scoping, really annoyingly hard to use even at point blank range.

Heathen Bastard Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 73	Posted - 2013.03.25 06:07:00 - [21] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: XXfootnoteXX wrote: My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. You were saying? *They would actually have to hit the soldier.* that to me indicates the rounds will still go off impact with a solid object or obstruction(in this case, a merc)
XXfootnoteXX DUST University Ivy League 160	Posted - 2013.03.25 06:13:00 - [22] - Quote Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: XXfootnoteXX wrote: My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. You were saying? *They would actually have to hit the soldier.* that to me indicates the rounds will still go off impact with a solid object or obstruction(in this case, a merc) Sorry if I wasn't clear. The rounds will detonate when they get within range of a vehicle, but wont detonate on impact, they are designed to do more damage by exploding near the target rather than hitting it. How this will work with aiming at soldiers is the round can still hit the soldier but wont detonate. That being said 30mm or 40mm round hitting you in the chest is still going to do damage. That and the weapon is not acurate so you cant snipe soldiers at a distance. Think HMG kind of spread.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 629	Posted - 2013.03.25 06:15:00 - [23] - Quote Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: XXfootnoteXX wrote: My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. You were saying? *They would actually have to hit the soldier.* that to me indicates the rounds will still go off impact with a solid object or obstruction(in this case, a merc) And you just completely ignorex the fact that it doesn't trigger when shot at infantry and that would have to be done to damage infantry at all besides having them be right next to vehicles or installations
Heathen Bastard Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 73	Posted - 2013.03.25 07:28:00 - [24] - Quote Vermaak Doe wrote: Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: XXfootnoteXX wrote: My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. You were saying? *They would actually have to hit the soldier.* that to me indicates the rounds will still go off impact with a solid object or obstruction(in this case, a merc) And you just completely ignorex the fact that it doesn't trigger when shot at infantry and that would have to be done to damage infantry at all besides having them be right next to vehicles or installations seeing as it was not concisely pointed out until earlier(specifically, right before your post, and edited into the main post) I went with the worst case for balance, as you did earlier. also, ignorex is not a word.
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 316	Posted - 2013.03.25 09:24:00 - [25] - Quote OK argument to this.... Drop ships aren't easy enough to kill already? The assault FG has about a 2 second rof with higher dmg and a potential of anti personnel. why would you use your MF over an AFG?
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 40	Posted - 2013.03.25 10:00:00 - [26] - Quote range maybe?
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 316	Posted - 2013.03.25 10:12:00 - [27] - Quote ladwar wrote: range maybe? ... i have yet to find the maximum range of my forge gun... neither have snipers... or those irritating tanks that hide on top mountains.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 40	Posted - 2013.03.25 10:46:00 - [28] - Quote 300m base, found it for ya! EDIT:even better snipers 600m rail 500m
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 317	Posted - 2013.03.25 11:20:00 - [29] - Quote ladwar wrote: 300m base, found it for ya! EDIT:even better snipers 600m rail 500m huh would you look at that... so... yeah... range isnt a problem then
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 40	Posted - 2013.03.25 11:29:00 - [30] - Quote i have ran into range problems with forge gunning dropships. they are just given way to much red line to hit all the way into

Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 629	Posted - 2013.03.25 11:37:00 - [31] - Quote Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Heathen Bastard wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: XXfootnoteXX wrote: My counter to this is the fact that the rounds would have to be near the installation/HAV/DS for them to explode, the rounds wouldnt trigger if shot at infantry, and they would actually have to hit the soldier. You were saying? *They would actually have to hit the soldier.* that to me indicates the rounds will still go off impact with a solid object or obstruction(in this case, a merc) And you just completely ignorex the fact that it doesn't trigger when shot at infantry and that would have to be done to damage infantry at all besides having them be right next to vehicles or installations seeing as it was not concisely pointed out until earlier(specifically, right before your post, and edited into the main post) I went with the worst case for balance, as you did earlier. also, ignorex is not a word. It was however pointed out before you posted your firsr post in this thread, which also shows it was likely edited in before you posted. Now that you've corrected my spelling are you going to prove this to be Op against infantry?
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 317	Posted - 2013.03.25 11:37:00 - [32] - Quote ladwar wrote: i have ran into range problems with forge gunning dropships. they are just given way to much red line to hit all the way into Still not a problem theyre not exactly helping much over there lol and its almost guaranteed they start on a nice long... very STRAIGHT fly back to the battlefield lol
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 40	Posted - 2013.03.25 11:45:00 - [33] - Quote yes but they sit just outside of my range, mocking me, begging me to shoot them out of the sky when my team has red lined them. but for really if the maps do open up i can see this being able to see a part if it had greater range then the forge gun. i see the forge gun more as anti HAV with the ability of anti-lav and anti-bad dropship
Halador Osiris Dead Six Initiative Daringly Inserting Large Dangerous Objects 75	Posted - 2013.03.25 12:51:00 - [34] - Quote Terry Webber wrote: I've been wanting a weapon like this. Makes taking down a dropship a little easier for heavies. Shut your god*n mouth. My dropship is nearing maxed out (just 2 more levels of shield control), and here's the breakdown on AV: Swarms - Don't hurt, I can tank 4-5 volleys before pulling out to regen shields AV nades - Fly higher? Rails - Avoid them until they're all dead Forge gun - Sit back in my redline like a b*h
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 629	Posted - 2013.03.25 13:03:00 - [35] - Quote ChromeBreaker wrote: ladwar wrote: i have ran into range problems with forge gunning dropships. they are just given way to much red line to hit all the way into Still not a problem theyre not exactly helping much over there lol and its almost guaranteed they start on a nice long... very STRAIGHT fly back to the battlefield lol Vermaak Doe wrote: It was however pointed out before you posted your first post in this thread, which also shows it was likely edited in before you posted. Now that you've corrected my spelling are you going to prove this to be Op against infantry? i miss swarm launchers doing dmg to infantry I still skill them to reminisce about the good days
Charlotte O'Dell Planetary Response Organisation Test Friends Please Ignore 64	Posted - 2013.03.25 15:08:00 - [36] - Quote Reduce dmg vs HAV's 20%. Also, make a large turret version
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 635	Posted - 2013.03.25 15:19:00 - [37] - Quote If anything reduce damage done to light targets
Hunter Junko Bojo's School of the Trades 66	Posted - 2013.04.05 19:57:00 - [38] - Quote Change the name to "MF Doom" and i'm completely ok with this idea :D
Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe Planetary Response Organisation 234	Posted - 2013.04.05 21:21:00 - [39] - Quote Way too much DPS. I also feel like it steps on the forge gun's toes. It's basically the same weapon, except instead of requiring at least some aiming skill this one allows you to do full damage even if you miss. Plus, as others have stated, an AV weapon shouldn't also kill all of the infantry in the vehicle's general vicinity.
Vermaak Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 682	Posted - 2013.04.07 00:39:00 - [40] - Quote Alan-Ibn-Xuan Al-Alasabe wrote: Way too much DPS. I also feel like it steps on the forge gun's toes. It's basically the same weapon, except instead of requiring at least some aiming skill this one allows you to do full damage even if you miss. Plus, as others have stated, an AV weapon shouldn't also kill all of the infantry in the vehicle's general vicinity. That's why they said the numbers were just throw ln out and possibly need changing in the Op

Charlotte O'Dell Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 106	Posted - 2013.04.07 05:02:00 - [41] - Quote Make a vehicle version.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 3401	Posted - 2013.04.11 11:17:00 - [42] - Quote Having an automatic AV weapon would be awesome for variety
Draco Cerberus Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 18	Posted - 2013.04.12 20:28:00 - [43] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: Make a vehicle version. I could see this being great as a module for the HAVs as they have a stable gun platform, also good for dropships attempting to corner tanks and LAVs.
Meeko Fent Mercenary incorperated 77	Posted - 2013.06.19 14:42:00 - [44] - Quote Wouldn't it make sense that the slower furring weapon be the 50 mm, and get faster as the bore decreases, at the cost of range and dmg?
Master Jaraiya Ultramarine Corp 277	Posted - 2013.06.19 14:58:00 - [45] - Quote Good Idea imo. Obviously it would do more damage vs armor. Any ideas for numbers on % damage vs shield and % damage vs armor? Also would need numbers for Splash Damage.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 5039	Posted - 2013.07.17 07:08:00 - [46] - Quote Still would be amazing


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.