DUST Search - Extend HMG range

Krom Ganesh wrote:

D legendary hero wrote:

the IRL argument was meant to be used in conjuntion with the "how much more so" question.

therefore, if LMGs IRL use the same ammo as ARs, and are meant for supresion, walking fire, etc. How much more so, should a HMG in the far future be more effecient?

although knowledge doesnt always go forward with time, tbh the general equation for the future technology is:

future tech > present tech > past tech

is if present tech is good, wh is the future variant bad. please explain.

You seemed to have missed my point.

Krom Ganesh wrote:

As for the "IRL arguments," if you haven't noticed we are fighting as immortal clone soldiers with lasers, bullets, and everything else in between in space year something something something. We're not going for realism here.

Your progression of quality is still an IRL argument.

Besides, how can you say their future tech is worse? Can you tell how much force is behind each shot? Perhaps to overcome technological advances in protection (our suits and shields), they had to develop more powerful weapons that have disadvantages.

If we were going for realism, there probably wouldn't be any mercs. If nothing else, EVE pilots could easily handle eliminating any threats on the surface. More likely, we would have incredibly advanced robots sweep through areas, eliminating any missed targets, and reasserting control.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
D legendary hero Strong-Arm 169	Posted - 2013.06.15 11:42:00 - [1] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: What a fantastic balancing argument OP! Bravo! wether that was sarcasim or not, your actually right, because based on the dispersion of the HMG compared to the AR, and the fact that they do indeed fire similar rounds they should have the same range. AR vs HMG should be like this: AR accuracy > HMG accuracy AR dps < HMG dps AR range = HMG range AR over heat < HMG over heat AR reload > HMG reload AR dispesion < HMG dispersion AR headshots > HMG headshots AR damage per shot = HMG damage per shot so, TBH the HMG should do the same damage per bullet as the AR. if all other factors stay the same giving the HMG the same dispersion, reload, over heating, inaddition to the heavys, low turn speed and movement speed. it will finally be a viable weapon again.
D legendary hero Strong-Arm 169	Posted - 2013.06.15 11:44:00 - [2] - Quote Psychotic Shooter wrote: it is a heavy weapon it should do more than an assault rifle it should take 2 infantry to take a heavy down No. that should be based on skill. if he has more skill and uses cover effectively he should be able to defend himself, but an AR should NEVER out gun an HMG. that defeats the point to a HMG
D legendary hero Strong-Arm 186	Posted - 2013.06.16 05:14:00 - [3] - Quote Ashes Rain wrote: Extending HMG range would just be a step in the wrong direction. ^^no
D legendary hero Strong-Arm 186	Posted - 2013.06.16 05:14:00 - [4] - Quote Tankin Tarkus wrote: extended range in general would be a step in the right direction..... ^^yes
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 189	Posted - 2013.06.16 05:20:00 - [5] - Quote ARF 1049 wrote: [quote=Tankin Tarkus] stuff LMGs in real life use the same rounds as the ARs in the squad for economy of amunition. tell it to the marines. HMGs have even larger rounds in real life. in the ame it would only make ssense. and would be balanced.
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 189	Posted - 2013.06.17 07:00:00 - [6] - Quote Wolfica wrote: legendary hero, I applaud you thank you, thank you. also, bump 1+
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 197	Posted - 2013.06.17 22:52:00 - [7] - Quote Benari Kalidima wrote: Psychotic Shooter wrote: it is a heavy weapon it should do more than an assault rifle it should take 2 infantry to take a heavy down Then what's the point of playing anything but heavy? whats the point of playing anything other than Assault or logi, when you can tank just as hard as a heavy and with an AR do every weapons job better?
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 199	Posted - 2013.06.17 23:33:00 - [8] - Quote the IRL argument was meant to be used in conjuntion with the "how much more so" question. therefore, if LMGs IRL use the same ammo as ARs, and are meant for supresion, walking fire, etc. How much more so, should a HMG in the far future be more effecient? although knowledge doesnt always go forward with time, tbh the general equation for the future technology is: future tech > present tech > past tech is if present tech is good, wh is the future variant bad. please explain.
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 199	Posted - 2013.06.18 04:21:00 - [9] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: D legendary hero wrote: the IRL argument was meant to be used in conjuntion with the "how much more so" question. therefore, if LMGs IRL use the same ammo as ARs, and are meant for supresion, walking fire, etc. How much more so, should a HMG in the far future be more effecient? although knowledge doesnt always go forward with time, tbh the general equation for the future technology is: future tech > present tech > past tech is if present tech is good, wh is the future variant bad. please explain. You seemed to have missed my point. Krom Ganesh wrote: As for the "IRL arguments," if you haven't noticed we are fighting as immortal clone soldiers with lasers, bullets, and everything else in between in space year something something something. We're not going for realism here. Your progression of quality is still an IRL argument. Besides, how can you say their future tech is worse? Can you tell how much force is behind each shot? Perhaps to overcome technological advances in protection (our suits and shields), they had to develop more powerful weapons that have disadvantages. If we were going for realism, there probably wouldn't be any mercs. If nothing else, EVE pilots could easily handle eliminating any threats on the surface. More likely, we would have incredibly advanced robots sweep through areas, eliminating any missed targets, and reasserting control. the eve pilots don't do it them selves because they dnt want to totally wreck the installations on the planet, and its resources, and the galente did the robot thing. they got hacked.
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 199	Posted - 2013.06.18 05:05:00 - [10] - Quote Beeeees wrote: Thats some fine reductio ad absurdum right there. Right now the HMG is a glorified shotgun. You cant even properly set up a killzone with it except indoors. And I doubt ambushing players around the corner is the HMGs niche, thats what shotguns and nova knives are for. An Ideal use of the HMG would be fire support and suppression. Thats the most sensible application for an MG. But it lacks the damage and the range. So yeah. ^^this. simple and true

D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 199	Posted - 2013.06.18 05:16:00 - [11] - Quote Master Jaraiya wrote: GVGMODE wrote: Real life HMG should be allowed to be used by other dropsuits if they have the strenght. Heavy dropsuit should have 20 slots (5High, 5Low, 5 weapon and 5 equipment) I mean it should be "too big to fail" -1 to obvious Troll if they do that a big self destruct button would be on the forehead of the heavy and his back and one melee would blow him up... or CCP you can allow enemies to hack the heavy suit and make it go to their team. since everyone seems to think the heavy should be a turret.
D legendary hero One-Armed Bandits 208	Posted - 2013.06.19 06:51:00 - [12] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: The Heavy's nature is to have a bit more health than everyone else, and thus be a little slower. The job of a heavy is to carry the heavy weapons; in the case of Dust, the Forge Gun and the HMG. The nature/job of the Heavy has nothing to do with the nature/job of the HMG. The nature of the HMG (any HMG, "IRL" or not) is to be a weapon capable of putting a lot of rounds downrange very quickly, not necessarily accurately. The job of an HMG, when it comes to vs infantry, is suppression, primarily, and killing, secondarily. It's not supposed to be a pin-point accurate bullet-hose with a ridiculous effective range. It's supposed to project a wide screen of bullets to discourage enemies from moving by keeping them behind cover. It shouldn't have as much recoil as an AR due to it's weight, but ALL fully-automatic weapons should have a level of dispersion proportional to their rate of fire, the size of their rounds, and the duration of their sustained fire. LMGs fire the same munition as ARs in the same squad for logistics purposes namely economy of ammo (why carry two different types of ammo, when one size fits all?) in many armoed forces around the world this is the case. many milita groups simply convert ARs to fire with larger magazines and a slightly larger barrel. Suppression and killing the enemy go hand and hand, in this i must disagree. if you can't put the enemy down (stopping power), then suppresion is not accomplished. if stopping power were not a concern then 9mm pistol rounds could be used instead to suppress, but obviously ability to prevent larger forces from charging your position is a concern. gattling guns, miniguns, HMGs and LMGs all equally are designed for killing potential and suppression. the tactical usage of the LMG (as an example), is all revolved around supression, whether in a defensive role, (kill zones, etc), or offense (i.e. walking fire). an enemy can be supressed on offense or defense. the goal is to stop movement. that brings me to the point. the HMG in dust 514 has neither the stopping power nor the range necesary for suppresion or killing potential. and these must be addressed.