Kazeno Rannaa
BIG BAD W0LVES
296
   |
Posted - 2013.10.27 19:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jade Dragonis wrote:CCP Wolfman wrote:Hi guys, ItGÇÖs time for some stats! Before you dive in to them let me remind you these are still a work in progress  First off there has been a fair bit of speculation surrounding the upcoming Combat Rifle and Rail Rifle. Speculate no more, for here are their current stats: [img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/news.control/65248/1/riflestats17.jpg[/img]As a part of their introduction to the game we also plan to rejig the rifle range profiles in line with the weapon type. Rail Rifles are hybrid GÇô railgun tech and are therefore the longest range weapons in the game, followed by laser weapons, projectile weapons and then hybrid GÇô blaster weapons. In the chart below you can see how they stack up Vs one another: [img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/news.control/65234/1/rifleranges17.jpg[/img]Lastly, as part of the ongoing vehicle work I can confirm we are also making changes to AV. So far weGÇÖve touched the AV Grenades and Swarm Launcher, we do also plan to look at the Forge Gun. These are the current numbers we are testing: - Reduced AV grenade damage (STD: 1050 -> 725; ADV: 1260 -> 870; PRO: 1470->1015 ) - Reduced swarm launcher damage (330 -> 220) - Reduced Swarm Launcher lock-on range from 400m to 175m WeGÇÖre looking forward to hearing your feedback! CCP Wolfman Nice. So now advanced and proto tanks can stomp harder. Brilliant move. Just when you think CCP are getting things right. At least assault is getting more weapons to kill us heavies with. Lets see if they ruin the forge gun like they ruined the HMG.
I have to agree with the suggestion that this will give vehicles an undue and unfair advantage when it comes to the AV that is available to the ground troops, when it comes to the SWARM lock-on range reduction. You are basically making it so that I have to be right next to the damn thing to get a lock on. Have any of you guys realized that even today the general lock-on range of the JAVELIN or the STINGER are in measured in thousands of meters, with even in BF3 the general lock-on ranges for their anti-vehicle weapon systems being measured in 1000 - 2000 meters (JAVELN and STINGER RESPECTIVELY).
So how is it with the size of the maps that are available (5km x 5km) that are lock on ranges are being reduced to such dismal ranges??? It makes no sense, considering that the general map size for BF3, which mind you is one of the only comparable games as for equipment, its use and functionality in comparison to map size and interactional availability, and is still smaller than in DUST, is being reduced from being roughly 50% of it and is being contemplated in reducing it to somewhere between 8-17% of their comparable ranges (related inversely).
Who thought that was a GREAT idea? Especially with a reduction in the weaponGÇÖs damage output? If you are going to reduce the range so HEAVILY, then the damage shouldnGÇÖt be touched. If the damage is going to be reduce by 1/3, then the range of lock-on should not be reduced, if anything is should be given at the VERY LEAST a 150-200m buff in lock-on range. This would be just for the shear fact that it is near impossible to get a target (primarily tanks, but also DERPships) because of the likelihood that a collision will occur due to flight path occlusions.
Nothing personal WOLFman, but what did you smoke out of the crack-pipe to come up with these adjustments to the swarm and AV nades? Was it every one being upset with the fact of being hit by invisible swarms? IF so, isnGÇÖt the more appropriate fix to this issue is increasing the draw distance of both the vehicles and the swarms while working out how you are able to add a collision or lock-on threat indicator alarm? This solution screams of a cheap (i.e., cognitively and it has the appearance of being lazy in the problem solving department) and temporary fix that will have to be undone at a later date, especially when the stat adjustment for vehicles is finally done and implemented for the 1.7/1.8 update.
That also sounds the GÇ£double your workGÇ¥ alarm in my head, since again, you will be implementing this fix as a band-aide for one problem, and then that band-aide will allow an infection that will also have to be addressed along with the original problem that that band-aid was placed there with the intention of fixing it.
As for the the weapons. They seem fairly balanced role wise. My only disappointment is the fact that the assault variants of both the Rail and Combat rifles are being forced to have an iron sight. I believe a number of us were under the impression that a red-dot sight was going to be the standard for them, or at least the Rail rifle. That being based off the model that was paraded around in earlier renditions? So the Amarr are the only ones with the tech to build red-dot (or rather gold-dot) sights?
Before you commit to the iron sights for ADS on the assault variants, I would RECOMMEND that you post images of what those sight pictures will look like while in ADS (both the ACOG and the Iron sights) and I would request that you look at playing with a red-dot/HOLO style scope for both of the new rifles.
And on a final note, what about the MAGSEC SMG? Anything new down the pipes for my heavy brethren? They seem to be the bastard children besides us Caldari. They have only 1 race and three suits to choose from, kind of like us Caldari only have medium frames, no heavies, no light frames, and just swarms, equipment, sniper rifles, AV nades, and NOVA knives to our patriotism to the State and our Corporate parents.
|