How exactly are AR's OP? I'm a heavy, so I never use em really. But going against them a lot, I don't really see it. I would say maybe just knock the effective range down a bit (probably excluding the TAR); they seem to shred me just a little bit too quickly at some crazy ranges.

ARs are fine at short range, but their ADS dispersion and kick is too low, which extends their effective range further than a scrambler rifle (scrams have a higher optimal range, but the kick and semi-auto fire lowers the DPS compared to the constant accurate stream of plasma coming from a scoped AR).

I don't use the AR.

I find the AR rant threads to be stupid.

the current AR is in a decent place right now. it should be the baseline, average weapon, around which the rest of the weapons are balanced by role.

it kills fast, but not overpoweringly so.

the whining is achieving critical mass.

so does the assault rifle in real life.

90% of gamers prefer assault rifle gameplay. Nerfing it because 90% of gamers prefer vanilla play isn't a justification, it's being an idiot.

if 90% of players use ARs, then it stands to reason that 90% of the kills will come from assault rifles.

I quote from the book of Goon 69:96

"And thus did Breakin Stuff Look down from on High and speaketh his word: DUH! For by math, shall ye be saved."

Yes it is true that with a higher use level will come a higher total volume of kills and further that such a volume could be misunderstood to be a balance issue. It is also true that a large portion of the player base used the TAR and that the number of users certainly contributed to the volume of its kills.... it was also brokenly OP.

An assessment of this type needs to consider per capita kills per weapon, and since we're not in a liner system it also needs to include ratio of kills per weapon vs each given alternate weapon with a ratio established for the optimal range of each weapon under consideration.

If it gets 90% of the kills because it's used by 90% of the players (were we living in a world where all players had equal skill and all characters had equal SP) then that would be one thing, but if it's winning 90% of the time when matched against weapons of another type then that's something else.

@Thread if anyone wants to see more of my commentary on actual weapon balance as opposed to methods of assessing it then feel free to look here. Replies which treat my post in this thread as a direct assessment pro or neg of AR balance will likely be redirected to the above link.

Cheers,
Cross

I don't use the AR.

I find the AR rant threads to be stupid.

the current AR is in a decent place right now. it should be the baseline, average weapon, around which the rest of the weapons are balanced by role.

it kills fast, but not overpoweringly so.

the whining is achieving critical mass.

How exactly are AR's OP? I'm a heavy, so I never use em really. But going against them a lot, I don't really see it. I would say maybe just knock the effective range down a bit (probably excluding the TAR); they seem to shred me just a little bit too quickly at some crazy ranges.

How to have fun in Dust 514:
Step 1. Play as a Caldari assault with an AR.
Step 2. Cry for everything that isn't a Caldari assault with an AR to be nerfed.
Step 3. ????
Step 4. Profit!

I just want to know. I want ot stick with this game. but, i really want to know if something is going to be done ...Anything to fix ARs OR buff everything else for balance.

Mint chip, Logi bro, eterni, Foxfour.... anyone.

The current AR is stupidly overused due to it being standard, but more importantly, OP.

Currently, in pubs, the AR kills almost as much as 11 of the available 14 weapons in the game combined.

Because ARs are useful and familiar and easy to pickup. If you want an OP weapon, try the high end forge guns.

Because ARs are useful and familiar and easy to pickup. If you want an OP weapon, try the high end forge guns.

I just want to know. I want ot stick with this game. but, i really want to know if something is going to be done ...Anything to fix ARs OR buff everything else for balance.

Mint chip, Logi bro, eterni, Foxfour.... anyone.

so does the assault rifle in real life.

90% of gamers prefer assault rifle gameplay. Nerfing it because 90% of gamers prefer vanilla play isn't a justification, it's being an idiot.

if 90% of players use ARs, then it stands to reason that 90% of the kills will come from assault rifles.

How exactly are AR's OP? I'm a heavy, so I never use em really. But going against them a lot, I don't really see it. I would say maybe just knock the effective range down a bit (probably excluding the TAR); they seem to shred me just a little bit too quickly at some crazy ranges.

this is in fact wrong. From the rifles invention to now it has never been the source of more death in any conflit than every other weapon combined. the conquistadores used black plague as a WMD.
in WW1 Gattling guns/machine guns killed more people than ARs (still rilfes, but reloadied chamber themselves.
in WW2 Bombs killed more people than ARs, HMGs killed more people than ARs. and LMGs came into heavy use, killing more people than ARs.

ever since, every other conflit and war world wide the AR has never been the most potent weapon on the battle filed. It is the most standard weapon, but in fact LMGs have consistently since their inseption been more potent than ARs.

Many LMGs are just ARs with extended clips and heavier barrels. (if this were applied to DUST my HMG would be doing 34 damage per shot at 2000 RPM. but, balance dictats that it can't be that powerful..lol).

Many simple, early snipers are ARs with longer barrels, and a sight (if applied to dust, a sniper would have 34 damage per shot...lol)

ARs in RL over heat (yes sustained fire will damage your barrel and warp/distort your barrel thus ruining accurcy, the melting could cause a backfire. so if applied to dust, i can only imagine what super heated plasma will do to your barrel.) so they are fired in bursts.

ARs in RL jam when put in water, sand, mudd, etc.

ARs in RL normally have 30 round magazines.

ARs in RL are horrible for CQB due to their bulky designed and that they can easily snag on items indoors (except the recent M4 carbine with a shorter barrel and the same accurcy as an M16.)


a good portion of players PREFERED to run flaylocks.
Well, about roughly 35% of players ran flaylocks as side arms, 20% had it proto. and less than 1% ran two flaylocks. People complained and it was nerfed. so, by your own definition. your an idiot.



That doesn't means it s not OP. 90% of players ran TAcs when it was OP. and 90% of kills came from them. and TAC was op.

I quote from the book of Proverbs 14:24 "...the foolishness of the stupid ones is foolishness."

So i suggest you do this proverbs 17:28 "even anyone foolish, when keeping silent, will be regarded as wise; anyone closing up his lips as having understanding"

"And thus did Breakin Stuff Look down from on High and speaketh his word: DUH! For by math, shall ye be saved."

Play caldari logi is how to have fun?

Cripes! Why didn't you tell me I'm not having fun playing the most obnoxious fatty in DUST history???

How was I to know my HMG was less optimally fun? Does my forge gun suffer this deficiency?

You bring anecdotal evidence, and no hard facts. nothing is OP because you assert that it is OP.

Something is OP if numbers and facts prove it.

All I see here is that "the assault rifle beats everything." <---This would be an example of anecdotal evidence.

All nerf threads on the DUST forums save for a few who bring math to the party are anecdotal, and thusly worthless from a game balance standpoint.

"in the hands of skilled players it proved to be as effective as primary weapons"

And yet 1. this is the same evidence people brought with regards the Flaylocks, MD, HMGs, LAZERs, etc and they were subsequently nerfed

And 2. I have numbers and math littered across almost every post i make on this god damn forum and no one responds to it, because it is irrefutable.


seriously? people cries "flaylocks are OP" and i can't even rememebr a single reason why they said so. in fact 90% of their reasons for saying it was OP, were actually things the weapon was DESIGNED for. So, not only was it unnessesary, they effetively nerfed a gun that was in fact perfectly balanced.

Where as everyone profess the AR to be balanced and yet, it out guns HMGs, and Shotguns in their niches. Please explain, why an AR has more damage per second than a Tank turret?

The weapon is overused. There's no two ways about it. It's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of preserving diversity.

Heres my maths....

The FleyLock could kill any suit other than a heavy (stupid cal logi) in 3 shots. Think thats quite simple.

Heres my maths....

The FleyLock could kill any suit other than a heavy (stupid cal logi) in 3 shots. Think thats quite simple.

As for the link, its an example... the AK47 could pretty much be fired underwater after being burried in sand. This is a whole other universe, quoting real life and that type of stuf for a GAME is pointless.

If you think the FleyLock was balanced... you might as well ask for HMG with 34dmg... wait...