DUST Search - Announcement:Weapon stats!

Jebus McKing wrote:

Daxxis KANNAH wrote:

Jebus McKing wrote:

The only weapon I'm quite worried about at the moment is the Scrambler Rifle.

Looking at the proto assault variant it requires less CPU and just 2 PG more than the Duvolle AR, but has an optimal range comparable to the current Tactical AR. It is full-auto, deals comparable amounts of damage per second and has a significantly larger clipsize, reloads faster and has a red dot sight.

I'm not calling it OP yet, but looking at the stats I guess this will be a VERY good weapon.

Yes it also costs 30k more and is actually a Pro 1 level weapon.

The Proto CR might be better too (than Duvolle) with the ROF but lets just wait to see before throwing out OP. Duvolle and GEK are already monsters so dont know whats the issue.

Dont tell me those are tears welling up.

I'm raising concerns and giving feedback based on the stats we have. This has nothing to do with QQ-ing. Quite the contrary. I expect CCP to be VERY careful concerning balancing in order to avoid having to rebalance weapons again, which - as they said during EVE Vegas - costs them a lot of time and money.

From the stats I gathered here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkgH4oyiFeUAdFpjQW0wRExKazF6empxY0R2Rm9iV3c&usp=sharing#gid=0 the SR to me looks like it has the potential to be phenomenally good.

In a highly competitive environment like Planetary Conquest no one gives a **** about a mere +30k ISK per clone or those ~31k SP you need for Prof. 1.

But this is what I think about this weapon and if my feedback makes CCP take another look at the SRs stats even if they don't change a thing because the data gathered during playtesting did not raise any balancing concerns then I consider this a success.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Skybladev2 Vacuum Cleaner. LLC RUST415 53	Posted - 2013.10.26 17:40:00 - [511] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skybladev2 wrote: But LAVs are buffed. With less slots Meaning new vehicles can not overtank old versions?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1527	Posted - 2013.10.26 17:43:00 - [512] - Quote Skybladev2 wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Skybladev2 wrote: But LAVs are buffed. With less slots Meaning new vehicles can not overtank old versions? Not the LLAV, thats been removed As for the new LAV only active can make it have more tank but no more passive
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 9720	Posted - 2013.10.26 18:02:00 - [513] - Quote Well based on the kick comment ccp logibro made with the rail rifle I can see losing more than one second just feathering out shots and bad trigger timing could cause a lot of shots to not fire at all. This may force the RR to be a bit closer range if the kick is notable.
Nick nugg3t Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 198	Posted - 2013.10.26 18:23:00 - [514] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: The Rail Rifle in my experience has a fair bit of kick to it. I'll talk to CCP Wolfman and see if we can get some footage of all four rifles firing a full clip without any input correction (player moving the trigger to keep it on target). I hope your speech skill is at least +70 before you talk to wolfman It would be so cool If you SUCCEEDED I really really want this :0

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 3095	Posted - 2013.10.26 18:34:00 - [515] - Quote Nick nugg3t wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: The Rail Rifle in my experience has a fair bit of kick to it. I'll talk to CCP Wolfman and see if we can get some footage of all four rifles firing a full clip without any input correction (player moving the trigger to keep it on target). I hope your speech skill is at least +70 before you talk to wolfman It would be so cool If you SUCCEEDED I really really want this :0 It's not about the speech level, it's about how much honeyed lamb you have. CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics

Jebus McKing Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 114	Posted - 2013.10.26 19:07:00 - [516] - Quote Daxxis KANNAH wrote: Jebus McKing wrote: The only weapon I'm quite worried about at the moment is the Scrambler Rifle. Looking at the proto assault variant it requires less CPU and just 2 PG more than the Duvolle AR, but has an optimal range comparable to the current Tactical AR. It is full-auto, deals comparable amounts of damage per second and has a significantly larger clipsize, reloads faster and has a red dot sight. I'm not calling it OP yet, but looking at the stats I guess this will be a VERY good weapon. Yes it also costs 30k more and is actually a Pro 1 level weapon. The Proto CR might be better too (than Duvolle) with the ROF but lets just wait to see before throwing out OP. Duvolle and GEK are already monsters so dont know whats the issue. Dont tell me those are tears welling up. I'm raising concerns and giving feedback based on the stats we have. This has nothing to do with QQ-ing. Quite the contrary. I expect CCP to be VERY careful concerning balancing in order to avoid having to rebalance weapons again, which - as they said during EVE Vegas - costs them a lot of time and money. From the stats I gathered here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkgH4oyiFeUAdFpjQW0wRExKazF6empxY0R2Rm9iV3c&usp=sharing#gid=0 the SR to me looks like it has the potential to be phenomenally good. In a highly competitive environment like Planetary Conquest no one gives a **** about a mere +30k ISK per clone or those ~31k SP you need for Prof. 1. But this is what I think about this weapon and if my feedback makes CCP take another look at the SRs stats even if they don't change a thing because the data gathered during playtesting did not raise any balancing concerns then I consider this a success.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 1716	Posted - 2013.10.26 19:31:00 - [517] - Quote Why not nerf the swarm lock on range first, then see if the damage needs to be reduced? If a tank wants to play up close it should be risky.
Thang Bausch Pierrot Le Fou Industries 72	Posted - 2013.10.26 20:07:00 - [518] - Quote Mixed feeling about nerfing SL damage so much, but also dropping the lock on range is crazy. You are essentially nerfing the SL to uselessness. I want my SP back. Actually, I want the money back from the Elite pack I bought a couple of months ago. alpha games don't deserve money spent on them.
Beforcial REAPERS REPUBLIC 43	Posted - 2013.10.26 20:23:00 - [519] - Quote The BK-42 and the SL-4 are the only ones that make sens to me racially speaking. Would be more useful to be able to actually use them and then give feedback. Also i am guessing that everyone that was waiting for these since before May 14th 2013 will just have to grind some more for them now. No possibility of recovering the galentte assault rifle skill points. Right?
Michael Cratar Fenrir's Wolves DARKSTAR ARMY 260	Posted - 2013.10.26 20:37:00 - [520] - Quote Wow, these stats look as if thought was put in them. They look fine so far. Keep up the good work!

Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2849	Posted - 2013.10.26 20:53:00 - [521] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: So, will the range buffs to the Scrambler Rifle result in the semi-auto version getting a scope? As it's designed as a longer range weapon, I think it really needs one. It'd be nice to have the Laser Rifle receive an "ACOG" sight as well, actually. They're both meant to be longer range weapons but are only equipped with reflex sights. Scrambler probably does need a better scope on the semi-auto.
Daxxis KANNAH Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 433	Posted - 2013.10.26 21:05:00 - [522] - Quote Jebus McKing wrote: Daxxis KANNAH wrote: Jebus McKing wrote: The only weapon I'm quite worried about at the moment is the Scrambler Rifle. Looking at the proto assault variant it requires less CPU and just 2 PG more than the Duvolle AR, but has an optimal range comparable to the current Tactical AR. It is full-auto, deals comparable amounts of damage per second and has a significantly larger clipsize, reloads faster and has a red dot sight. I'm not calling it OP yet, but looking at the stats I guess this will be a VERY good weapon. Yes it also costs 30k more and is actually a Pro 1 level weapon. The Proto CR might be better too (than Duvolle) with the ROF but lets just wait to see before throwing out OP. Duvolle and GEK are already monsters so dont know whats the issue. Dont tell me those are tears welling up. I'm raising concerns and giving feedback based on the stats we have. This has nothing to do with QQ-ing. Quite the contrary. I expect CCP to be VERY careful concerning balancing in order to avoid having to rebalance weapons again, which - as they said during EVE Vegas - costs them a lot of time and money. From the stats I gathered here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkgH4oyiFeUAdFpjQW0wRExKazF6empxY0R2Rm9iV3c&usp=sharing#gid=0 the SR to me looks like it has the potential to be phenomenally good. In a highly competitive environment like Planetary Conquest no one gives a **** about a mere +30k ISK per clone or those ~31k SP you need for Prof. 1. But this is what I think about this weapon and if my feedback makes CCP take another look at the SRs stats even if they don't change a thing because the data gathered during playtesting did not raise any balancing concerns then I consider this a success. I take your point about balancing but you do have to agree that the higher tier weapon is usually better. Also the AR's do really well right now against AScR's and while they are getting a range bump, if the scopes are going to stay the same then ironsight users will be fine in my opinion. It just seems AR users dont want people doing to them what they do. If you arent one I apologize. AS for PC - dont play so I wont say whether that is the level the weapons should be balanced for (others feel different) but as far as I know, tactics and the squad trump a weapon.
KING CHECKMATE AMARR IMPERIAL CRUSADERS 2089	Posted - 2013.10.26 21:37:00 - [523] - Quote Im NOT very happy with the AV weapon changes, but i'll wait to actually test them vs the ''balanced'' vehicles. it seems that at 220 per swarm, and ADV swarm launcher will only do 1100 dm. Taking into account that tanks have over 6k HP, up to 30-40% dam resistance PLUS repers/shield regenerator im not sure how we are supposed to kill stuff now. But again, i'll wait for the full data.. BTW im very exited for rail rifles. +1 on that CCP.
General John Ripper MoIden Heath PoIice Department EoN. 3910	Posted - 2013.10.26 21:40:00 - [524] - Quote please don't
TechMechMeds Swamp Marines Kleenex Inc. 1006	Posted - 2013.10.26 21:45:00 - [525] - Quote 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 Please don't
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 343	Posted - 2013.10.26 21:56:00 - [526] - Quote wow a new gun that will be able to smoke a heavy frame in 12 rounds from 100 meters away. Great.....
Meeko Fent expert intervention Caldari State 1303	Posted - 2013.10.26 22:26:00 - [527] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: wow a new gun that will be able to smoke a heavy frame in 12 rounds from 100 meters away. Great..... 61*12=732 Heavies have more base HP then that. Miss read the chart perhaps?
Jebus McKing Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 114	Posted - 2013.10.26 23:03:00 - [528] - Quote Daxxis KANNAH wrote: I take your point about balancing but you do have to agree that the higher tier weapon is usually better. Also the AR's do really well right now against AScR's and while they are getting a range bump, if the scopes are going to stay the same then ironsight users will be fine in my opinion. It just seems AR users dont want people doing to them what they do. If you arent one I apologize. AS for PC - dont play so I wont say whether that is the level the weapons should be balanced for (others feel different) but as far as I know, tactics and the squad trump a weapon. My point is that I think ARs and SRs are fairly well balanced right now. I personally use both of them and each has something unique to it that makes it more useful in certain situations than the other. With those changes it seems to me that the SR has just too many things to it that make it superior to any other rifle, not only to ARs. But maybe those stats make the gap look bigger than it actually is and that's why I hope CCP will check their data once more so they don't have to rebalance again after the update. In PC matches lag trumps everything else actually.
Nick nugg3t Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 199	Posted - 2013.10.26 23:33:00 - [529] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Nick nugg3t wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: The Rail Rifle in my experience has a fair bit of kick to it. I'll talk to CCP Wolfman and see if we can get some footage of all four rifles firing a full clip without any input correction (player moving the trigger to keep it on target). I hope your speech skill is at least +70 before you talk to wolfman It would be so cool If you SUCCEEDED I really really want this :0 It's not about the speech level, it's about how much honeyed lamb you have. . . . I'll be right back Mysteriously runs into the distance. . perhaps he is getting as much Honeyed Lamb as he possibly can? maybe he is getting something better.?
Rinzler XVII Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 197	Posted - 2013.10.26 23:52:00 - [530] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The more I look at these changes the more I see problems. The weapons with higher ranges are doing more damage than the weapons with low ranges. Take the rail rifle. The assault variant does more damage than a plasma rifle of an equivalent tier, at a significantly longer range. The damage is at a lower RoF and higher damage per shot so there's less grace for missing, but all the same more damage and a much longer range completely overshadows the existing AR. If a weapon has more range, it needs to lose damage as a trade-off, or have another mitigating factor. The spool-up time here is insufficient to balance this. It can't be like this, where the longer range weapons have both a range advantage AND a DPS advantage. You are an idiot ... why are their so many idiots replying on this topic ???? THE RAIL RIFLE WILL NOT DO AS MUCH DAMAGE IN CQC AS THE GALLENTE DO .. THE DAMAGE THEY DO SHOULD ALWAYS BE EQUAL AT THEIR OWN OPTIMAL RANGES .. WHY THE HELL SHOULD A WEAPON DO LESS DAMAGE THAN A CQC WEAPON WHEN AT ITS OPTIMUM RANGE ? Seriously how can something as simple as this be so hard to understand ... get close .. fight at your optimum range and gain the advantage .. if you're fighting at a rail rifles optimum range when you are out f your own weapons range you are gonna get killed ... This is my issue ... Idiots calling for nerfs because they do not understand basic concepts which then leads to a poor game

BLUE WAFFLE TASTY Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 17	Posted - 2013.10.27 00:42:00 - [531] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Woot. My only concern is the lock range though. Also for those of you complaining most vehicles potential tank of HAVs were reduced by a similar manner (removal of a module slot can hurt a tank significantly), based on just early theorycrafting lighter vehicles benefit the most from the AV nerf tanks more or less still die the samish or is now threatened by lesser vehicles again. However until I see the newer vehicle numbers I wont be able to play out any scenarios. Overall from the looks of it the rail rifle range is significant enough that there is lapses where its very superior to the plasma rifle. thats rediculous...try gettn within 175 meters of a dropship, ora beastly blaster tank. or the rail tank u guys allow to snipe from the red, that we now have no capability to lock onto.......wonderful move ccp, u guys r the greatest (not)
Ripcord19981 KNIGHTZ OF THE ROUND 128	Posted - 2013.10.27 00:52:00 - [532] - Quote damn, the assault combat rifle costs a LOT
D legendary hero Ultramarine Corp 1223	Posted - 2013.10.27 01:32:00 - [533] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: D legendary hero wrote: Doc DDD wrote: So now there is no point in speccing into swarms. Forge will have far superior range Forge will have far superior damage to vehicles/installations Forge will have far superior infantry sniping/obliterating ability Dont waste any points in Swarm Launchers, there is no benefit, put all those sp points into a level 1 heavy suit then level up that Forge Gun. Then we can all have fun as 16 forgers fight 16 forgers. There is zero benefit to swarms after the nerf, hurray it's a light weapon who cares, the plasma cannon and mass driver are going to be more effective AV at this rate. Just start the match in a logi suit and fly to the highest point on any map, even the new ones, drop uplinks and nanohives, then suicide and get back to those hives and forge away. Now you can solo anything anyone can throw at you. And this is balance? To nerf the only strictly AV weapon in the game and force anyone that can think logically to spec into Forges is going to kill diversity. I am all for trying to improve the game and balance stats and gameplay, if swarms are ripping the new tanks up on your test servers, then can you please get someone that has used a forge before to take a couple shots at one. It sounds like a fully specced forger, damage mods and level 5 proficiency, will be one shotting tanks. This on top of one shotting anyone in its sights. No wonder all we see in planetary conquest is forges on towers and roofs. Who cares about new rifles when Forge> All. Swarms are still wicked effective on DS Yes wicked effective if the dropship hovers less than 175m from swarmer and doesnt try to fly away, Forge still wins. AV nades almost win. If swarms ever showed up on my screen this would be UP.
Senator Snipe SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 55	Posted - 2013.10.27 01:38:00 - [534] - Quote LOL CCP soon there will be nothing but assault and logi spammers. CCP be sayin "**** heavies". am i right or wrong?
D legendary hero Ultramarine Corp 1223	Posted - 2013.10.27 02:08:00 - [535] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Thurak1 wrote: wow a new gun that will be able to smoke a heavy frame in 12 rounds from 100 meters away. Great..... 6112=732 Heavies have more base HP then that. Miss read the chart perhaps? your average heavy has 1100 ehp. Thats 18 shots that can kill a Heavy outside his effective range. If the number under ROF are the hundredth of a second delay between shots then 18 x 13 = 234 hundredths of a second. So, in 234 hundredths of a second you have killed a heavy. for those who don't know 234 hundreds of a second boils down to that would be 2.34 seconds hen again their is the .2 second charge up time. The galente militia galente AR kills a Heavy in approximately the same time at 2.35 seconds. So evidently without proficiency or damage mods: [list] gal AR kills heavy with 1100 ehp in 2.4 seconds within optimal caldari railrifle kills heavy with 1100 ehp in 2.5 seconds within optimal (much farther than gal btw) minmintar combat rifle kills heavy with 1100 ehp in ~2.9 seconds within its optimal Scr can kill a heavy with 1100 ehp anywhere within 2.0-2.7 seconds within its optimal (largely depends on the suit your using) Combat rifle Based on the stats the burst and full auto have the same fire rate. evidently their is a .05 second delay between each shot even in the busts. We do not have a burst delay stat so, its hard to tell what its true fire rate is. mostly likely the same burst delay as the galente burst. Therefore it will take .15 seconds to fire one burst which will do a total of 96 damage. If this is the case and their is a .1 second delay. 1 second the cambat rifle does 96 damage in .25seconds time * 4 = 384DPS. If the CB rifle has a 384 DPS, then it will take it 2.86 seconds to kill a heavy. Which is pretty bad. considering minmintar about speed and power. I am really worried the combat rilfe is going to be utter garbage. And join the ranks of all the other minmintar wepaonry. The only usable minmintar stuff in this game are locus grenades and smgs....
D legendary hero Ultramarine Corp 1223	Posted - 2013.10.27 02:09:00 - [536] - Quote Senator Snipe wrote: LOL CCP soon there will be nothing but assault and logi spammers. CCP be sayin "**** heavies". am i right or wrong? thats it in a nutshell. they just screwed heavys and minmintar straight to hell
BL4CKST4R WarRavens League of Infamy 1330	Posted - 2013.10.27 02:32:00 - [537] - Quote Would love to see a DPS comparison between all 4 rifle types, the GAR should have the highest DPS for its range sacrifice while the Rail rifle should have the lowest DPS for its higher range, what this does is maintain each gun dominant within its range fields. If the DPS remains the same for each gun what would happen is that the longest range weapon becomes the FOTM and the low range weapons become novelty. Looking at the ranges the GAR should have at least a 25-40% DPS advantage against the Rail rifle, while the Combat rifle and scrambler sit in between. Remember that DPS does not mean high damage, DPS is usually judged by low damage-per-shot and high ROF or a mixture of medium damage and medium ROF, while low DPS is usually (for high damage weapons) highdamage per-shot and low ROF. A good way to see how this comes into play is by comparing the gameplay of a Blaster cannon and Rail gun on a tank, at long ranges the Rail gun will always beat the blaster, but at close ranges the Blaster will always beat the Rail gun. Without adding the GAR and the Scrambler to this weapon comparison its hard to see how this will add a balanced gameplay, so far these two new rifles seem to overpower the previous rifles.
BL4CKST4R WarRavens League of Infamy 1330	Posted - 2013.10.27 02:51:00 - [538] - Quote Rinzler XVII wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: The more I look at these changes the more I see problems. The weapons with higher ranges are doing more damage than the weapons with low ranges. Take the rail rifle. The assault variant does more damage than a plasma rifle of an equivalent tier, at a significantly longer range. The damage is at a lower RoF and higher damage per shot so there's less grace for missing, but all the same more damage and a much longer range completely overshadows the existing AR. If a weapon has more range, it needs to lose damage as a trade-off, or have another mitigating factor. The spool-up time here is insufficient to balance this. It can't be like this, where the longer range weapons have both a range advantage AND a DPS advantage. You are an idiot ... why are their so many idiots replying on this topic ???? THE RAIL RIFLE WILL NOT DO AS MUCH DAMAGE IN CQC AS THE GALLENTE DO .. THE DAMAGE THEY DO SHOULD ALWAYS BE EQUAL AT THEIR OWN OPTIMAL RANGES .. WHY THE HELL SHOULD A WEAPON DO LESS DAMAGE THAN A CQC WEAPON WHEN AT ITS OPTIMUM RANGE ? Seriously how can something as simple as this be so hard to understand ... get close .. fight at your optimum range and gain the advantage .. if you're fighting at a rail rifles optimum range when you are out f your own weapons range you are gonna get killed ... This is my issue ... Idiots calling for nerfs because they do not understand basic concepts which then leads to a poor game If I rushed you with a AR (high DPS weapon) from 50 meters while you use a Sniper rifle (a low DPS weapon) you would die. If I rushed you with a AR (high DPS weapon) from 200 meters while you use a Sniper rifle (a low DPS weapon) I would die. The damage in this scenario is obviously not the same, but within the optimal range the optimal weapon is winning. Now imagine the Sniper rifle having the same DPS as the AR also its longer range, the optimal weapon for BOTH scenarios would be the sniper rifle (ignoring the sway and impossible hip fire which wouldn't be a problem for the Rail), this is the problem that Arkena is pointing out.
Borne Velvalor Endless Hatred 810	Posted - 2013.10.27 03:11:00 - [539] - Quote So, are the Combat Rifles replacing the Tactical Assault Rifles? Because Tac-ARs also are semiautomatic and share the same ranges. Well, unless you think that the 5m advantage is going to make everyone run the Combat Rifles. The fully automatic Combat Rifle has the range of a GK-Burst Assault Rifle. Rail Rifles look good, except what happens to Laser Rifles? It's bad enough having a 19m span to work with and getting slaughtered by GLUs without Rail Rifles. At least the Laser after heat can out damage most weapons within its optimum range right now. Also, how are the RoFs represented here? Hopefully these guns will promote higher weapon diversity. EDIT: Just noticed that the Combat Rifle is a burst weapon. Whoops.
Godin Thekiller Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 1284	Posted - 2013.10.27 03:13:00 - [540] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Why not nerf the swarm lock on range first, then see if the damage needs to be reduced? If a tank wants to play up close it should be risky. Implying that blasters don't exist I guess



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page