|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaughst
0uter.Heaven
EoN.
6
   |
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello.
So, I have been using the Flux grenade with the MD lately and noticed how effective it was at destroying shields. When I was talking to someone who was running a shotgun and cal logi fit at the time they had mentioned how the MD itself was balanced but the flux grenades were not. After mentioning it to a friend he said flat they were 'OP', while this is probably not the case Flux grenades could be changed to fit a more interesting tactical choice.
I started seeing how a STD flux grenade would destroy shields and at a rather big radius. At the moment it seems that the higher tiers might only serve to hit more players in a larger radius, the damage even at STD destroys most infantry shields. The flux grenade could be rebalanced with a simple radius and damage decrease at STD and scale up to PROTO from there but this itself brings problems. Only damaging shields and not fully depleting them imbalances it compared to the locus grenades.
A more logical path would be if you did indeed scale shield damage from the STD to PROTO yet added a negative effect to shield recharge/shield delay efficiency and have a small timer with that. You essentially throw one of your Flux grenades and with a X of amount of damage with a X amount of time the enemy's shield recharge is stunted, a longer shield delay will take into effect if you deplete his shields.
As far as how much the flux grenades do damage. For the sake of simplicity in this theoretical case the damage across tiers could remain the same only needing three to destroy 1000 shields, the higher tiers would increase the radius and have a stronger recharge/delay penalty. The penalty would not stack, only taking into effect when the timer on his penalty is over yet still doing shield damage. Probably a technical challenge though...
Short story. Do less damage to shields with flux yet add in a negative effect to the efficiency of shield recharge/delay so the player can make up the damage.
Thank you. |
Kaughst
0uter.Heaven
EoN.
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 12:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
ALPHA DECRIPTER wrote:I'll have to get back to you on that one as your idea/thoughts about the situation have given me mixed feelings. 
`sigh. Just another fun game of DUST.
Personally I run gallente assault with my MD so I worry very little about shields and more about destroying them. It just seems overtly simple when the majority of the time I can take out one of heaviest shield fitted classes at the moment (cal logi) with a good radius with my STD flux and than MD them, while the MD+Flux is situational itself the flux makes things seem one sided for me....This is all just a thought I really don't expect them to change flux but if they ever look at in the future I think I have the more logical alternative. |
Kaughst
0uter.Heaven
EoN.
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:They should do armor damage based on a percentage of your total shields, like let's say it does 20%, 30%, and 50% at Std, ADV, and proto a suit with 500 shields would lose it all and it if was a proto grenade take 250 armor damage. That way flux grenades can 1 shot shield suits like locus 1 shot aromor :)
I think one of the problems is that locus grenades are pretty uneven compared to Flux. Anyway... My thoughts on the flux grenade generally have to do with the flux having only the property of destroying shields rather than impairing them. While I am not asking for this change it might benefit more against shield tankers when they are fluxed and have a shield regen slow down rather than just a instant flux and shields are gone. I could say add in the negative shield regen effect without bringing down damage but I was only thinking of it in terms of balancing it, otherwise the flux are still to simplistic. Flux is cutting corners of what it can or should do. The subject will eventually crop up again and it probably relates to a wider discussion on shields and armour, but I think it's appropriate that we discuss it now and not just in terms of whether it benefits just our respective fittings. |
|
|
| |
|