DUST Search - Request

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Request - AV sidearm

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ankoku Daishogun Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 61	Posted - 2013.06.06 16:57:00 - [1] - Quote seeing that LAVs became the best anti infantry weapon, I request that CCP considers introducing an AV sidearm.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 584	Posted - 2013.06.06 16:58:00 - [2] - Quote no you already have the flaylock
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 4225	Posted - 2013.06.06 17:01:00 - [3] - Quote Just carry AV grenades.
Ankoku Daishogun Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 61	Posted - 2013.06.06 17:14:00 - [4] - Quote ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Flaylock is anti infantry. Using a flaylock against a vehicle is no different than using locus grenades against vehicles. KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Just carry AV grenades. Every weapon type has an AV variant except for side arms. I use AV nades, I use forgeguns, but I want to be able to create a pure AV role, AV weapon, AV grenades, and AV sidearm.
Xender17 Intrepidus XI 149	Posted - 2013.06.06 17:50:00 - [5] - Quote Why not make a Heavy weapon built to bring down MCC's while your at it?
Shadow Archeus OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 88	Posted - 2013.06.06 18:03:00 - [6] - Quote Ankoku Daishogun wrote: ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Flaylock is anti infantry. Using a flaylock against a vehicle is no different than using locus grenades against vehicles. KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Just carry AV grenades. Every weapon type has an AV variant except for side arms. I use AV nades, I use forgeguns, but I want to be able to create a pure AV role, AV weapon, AV grenades, and AV sidearm. I've killed tanks with a flaylock and av nades
Ankoku Daishogun Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 61	Posted - 2013.06.06 18:17:00 - [7] - Quote Shadow Archeus wrote: I've killed tanks with a flaylock and av nades i have killed a tank once with an exile assault rifle, it doesn't make it an AV weapon.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2013.06.06 18:36:00 - [8] - Quote Even if we were to accept that everyone should be able to have more or less incidental access to AV... well, this is already true. Your grenade slot can carry three AV grenades, these can do quite a number on a vehicle in a short time when they're in range. LAVs trying to roadkill must logically come into range, to further help in dealing with these your AV grenades can be used as ghetto proximity mines. Throw 'em down in the path the vehicle will take and they'll remain dormant 'til it's in range, at which point it will seek and detonate. As for sidearm AV, I'd argue we already have sidearm AV potential in the Flaylock. Let's break it down: Tool #1 is Flux Grenades. You have three. At basic it's 1200 shield damage, unresistable (probably bug). 3600 shield damage in all and actually a perfect complement to the Flaylock for anti-personnel work too. Tool #2 is the Flaylock itself. Using prototype Core Flaylock figures because they're the ones I remember offhand. About 300 damage per shot, 3 in a magazine, 130% armour damage, easy to hit with. I'd have to guess at a delay between shots of 0.7 seconds. So let's break that down. At least 3600 shield damage from Flux, when they're all done with or shields are gone you can get to Flaying. Around-about 390 damage per shot in salvos of three, delivered in about 2.5 seconds. 1170 damage in 2.5 seconds and a 2.5s delay before the next salvo is loaded. That seems more than respectable to me for a set of tools not dedicated to being AV. You can engage and hit hard should the need arise and you have the proximity and terrain. I wouldn't tank-hunt in it but being able to bite back hard if a HAV comes strolling in counts for a lot. I also know I've rounded down the Flaylock's damage here while probably making out it's firerate to be slower than it actually is. I could very well be underselling it here.
Kergg Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2013.06.06 18:45:00 - [9] - Quote Ankoku Daishogun wrote: ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Every weapon type has an AV variant except for side arms. I use AV nades, I use forgeguns, but I want to be able to create a pure AV role, AV weapon, AV grenades, and AV sidearm. Do you really gain an advantage having the extra AV weapon? Not second-guessing you, just asking for my own edification. I've never made an AV suit. I would think it would be better to have an anti-infantry sidearm so that you could potentially deal with dudes that are trying to take you out on foot... But an AV sidearm would be nice to have for other roles, too...like the scout running through open territory dodging LAVs or the sniper who's doing some overwatch in an urban-ish area. I could see this working. Of course, it would have to be pretty limited so you don't have everyone running it all the time, right?
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:01:00 - [10] - Quote Kergg wrote: Ankoku Daishogun wrote: ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Every weapon type has an AV variant except for side arms. I use AV nades, I use forgeguns, but I want to be able to create a pure AV role, AV weapon, AV grenades, and AV sidearm. Do you really gain an advantage having the extra AV weapon? Not second-guessing you, just asking for my own edification. I've never made an AV suit. I would think it would be better to have an anti-infantry sidearm so that you could potentially deal with dudes that are trying to take you out on foot... But an AV sidearm would be nice to have for other roles, too...like the scout running through open territory dodging LAVs or the sniper who's doing some overwatch in an urban-ish area. I could see this working. Of course, it would have to be pretty limited so you don't have everyone running it all the time, right? I'm big into Forge Guns and no, having an AV sidearm wouldn't be all that useful to me. Assault Forge Gun with complex damage boosters would be outdamaging them hard and usually will be engaging vehicles at a range far beyond a side-arm's reach. If they were close by I'd opt for packed AV grenades for indirect arcing from cover and then hammer away with a 4-shot FG salvo if possible. Well, perhaps one Forge Gun slug first if I have surprise and indirect grenade throwing is feasible. Have to briefly expose yourself for direct fire, may as well use a direct shot first to make one of the unsafe shots safer. But I can't see a purely AV sidearm fitting into an all-out tank busting build unless it did more burst damage than a packed AV grenade or a souped up Forge Gun. At that point it's just unreasonable, though, far too good an AV weapon for a sidearm slot.
ladwar Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 586	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:14:00 - [11] - Quote Ankoku Daishogun wrote: ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Flaylock is anti infantry. Using a flaylock against a vehicle is no different than using locus grenades against vehicles. KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Just carry AV grenades. Every weapon type has an AV variant except for side arms. I use AV nades, I use forgeguns, but I want to be able to create a pure AV role, AV weapon, AV grenades, and AV sidearm. really it does more then MD on vehicles.. you want a better av sidearm then go HTFU and stop dreaming.
Ankoku Daishogun Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 62	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:40:00 - [12] - Quote Kergg wrote: Do you really gain an advantage having the extra AV weapon? Having an AV sidearm will allow for more fitting combinations. For an example, AF main AF grenades AV sidearm - I like using my core locus grenades along with my HMG, and I rarely use my sidearm on this setup. I'd love to have an AV sidearm on that fitting. Poplo Furuya wrote: As for sidearm AV, I'd argue we already have sidearm AV potential in the Flaylock. Let's break it down: You said it, all what it has is a potential and nothing more. I know a guy who murders tanks with core flaylocks. proto minmatar assault suit gives him 4 rounds in the magazine, and he runs dual core flaylocks. still it is a weapon designed to be anti infantry. Plasma cannons and Forgeguns can one shot kill any heavy, that doesn't make them anti infantry.
Kitten Empress Ametat Security Amarr Empire 308	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:44:00 - [13] - Quote I took down a tank with an SMG. So by the logic of one of the posters here, its an AV weapon?
Tankin Tarkus Quafe Runners 29	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:49:00 - [14] - Quote a AV sidearm would OP till DS and HAV's get a buff... dropships are weak as it is and AV grenades cripple HAVs while allowing a dude to still carry his AI light weapon
ARF 1049 The Phoenix Federation 26	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:55:00 - [15] - Quote Shadow Archeus wrote: Ankoku Daishogun wrote: ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Flaylock is anti infantry. Using a flaylock against a vehicle is no different than using locus grenades against vehicles. KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Just carry AV grenades. Every weapon type has an AV variant except for side arms. I use AV nades, I use forgeguns, but I want to be able to create a pure AV role, AV weapon, AV grenades, and AV sidearm. I've killed tanks with a flaylock and av nades i killed a tank with a freakin scrambler pistol :P
Halador Osiris Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 393	Posted - 2013.06.06 20:21:00 - [16] - Quote Scrambler pistols are supremely annoying for low flying dropships. They don't really hurt that bad, but they shake you up pretty good.
Poplo Furuya Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2013.06.06 21:09:00 - [17] - Quote Ankoku Daishogun wrote: Kergg wrote: Do you really gain an advantage having the extra AV weapon? Having an AV sidearm will allow for more fitting combinations. For an example, AF main AF grenades AV sidearm - I like using my core locus grenades along with my HMG, and I rarely use my sidearm on this setup. I'd love to have an AV sidearm on that fitting. Poplo Furuya wrote: As for sidearm AV, I'd argue we already have sidearm AV potential in the Flaylock. Let's break it down: You said it, all what it has is a potential and nothing more. I know a guy who murders tanks with core flaylocks. proto minmatar assault suit gives him 4 rounds in the magazine, and he runs dual core flaylocks. still it is a weapon designed to be anti infantry. Plasma cannons and Forgeguns can one shot kill any heavy, that doesn't make them anti infantry. If some fellow can specifically 'murder tanks' by going all-in on Flaylocks then that is actualised potential. He's using a sidearm at max potential to decimate heavy armour. Possessing two of them at once in the AV stakes is the less vital part, redraw instead of reload on salvo 1 buys 2 seconds less on TTK. It's frontloaded burst damage it achieves, not increased DPS. Using just one would not be a major set back for the AV side, more of a loss when it comes to AI. So the important part there is Complex Sidearm Damage Boosters and Prototype Minmatar Assault. With these the Flaylock murders tanks. Proto Min Assault is the costly limiter here and without it DPS is down 33%. That's a lot but if it can total HAVs it's still workable at 66% effectiveness with just the complex dam boosters. We also have to consider that this setup would also completely obliterate infantry, with a raised vantage point you can do so much hurt with peek-a-boo tactics it's not even funny. Whether the other weapon slot is a Flay to capitalise on that strength or something else is down to choice. I know the proto Minmatar is a major and expensive hurdle but it would do acceptable AV and superior AI damage even without. As for complex sidearm boosters, if you want an AV weapon to do good you don't half-ass it. This should probably have been my main point, actually: hardly anyone looking to do serious AV work fails to use damage amplifiers on their main weapon. You get it to perform. Adopting an AV role and having AV capability are two very different things. Flaylocks have AV capability from high burst damage. When focused on as your friend did they do well in the AV role, wrecking HAVs. Incidentally he must also completely brutalise infantry. In fact the niche he's carved for himself is probably more short range anti-everything. About 375 damage a shot, two 4-shot salvos with 2m splash, 130% armour damage... that's terrifying for anything to weather, especially with Flux added to the equation. Flaylock PG being low also allows more biotics, capitalising further on Minmatar speed to aid the hit and run side of it.
Meeko Fent Mercenary incorperated 29	Posted - 2013.06.06 22:11:00 - [18] - Quote No. Just No. Niet.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 82	Posted - 2013.06.06 22:18:00 - [19] - Quote Please no. We don't need infantry specialized as assaults to gain even a higher advantage against vehicles. I think AV should be its own specialization and not something you can simply throw onto an assault suit.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1423	Posted - 2013.06.07 02:27:00 - [20] - Quote ladwar wrote: no you already have the flaylock Even advanced flaylocks barely damage militia LAVs. They only have 40% efficiency against shields.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.