Thanks again, Aeon.

You make some good points, but I'm afraid our thinking is disparate at a fundamental level.
Still love you, but I must disagree with you.

I'm more in accord with CPM's take on weapon balance:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=120782&find=unread

The "AR-514" / "ScR-514" status quo must be challenged.
More weapon diversity means a better Dust for all of us.

---

PS: Weapon-sway, massive hip-fire spread, comparatively slow ADS-speed. These are the mechanics CoD employs to prevent hard-hitting ARs from dominating CQC weapons in close range.

Bear in mind that Call of Duty has those mechanics to prevent the hard-hitting rifles from dominating because it has the shortest TTK in the entire line-up of shooters. That being said, if we fix TTK than looking at rifles is less necessary.

Edit: And when I say that I mean in general. A SMG can kill just as easily as an AR in the right conditions.

Perhaps a tangent, but my Prototype Scout's TTK of 0.3 - 0.5 seconds is equitable to that of CoD's.

A half second TTK poses quite the problem when using a shotgun that fires at roughly 1 blast / second. What is a 400 HP sucker-punch to a 1000HP MedFrame, if he has the better part of a second to respond between each blast (rhetorical)? In the 3 second required killspan, how much damage can that MedFrame deal from his AR or ScR, without even pausing to aim (rhetorical)? The time spent and risk assumed in flanking his opponent ... his choice of biotics over plates for better odds of getting into optimal range ... all down the drain because the AR and ScR deserve "fair odds" vs a Shotgun (rhetorical)? Will Rail Rifle users also deserve "fair odds" when flanked by shotgunners (rhetorical)?

I call foul, and I'm not alone, but you say functioning as intended.

As a CPM1 candidate, these are the sorts of things I'd hoped you would say:
* All-Purpose Rifles should have poor odds vs niche weapons operated in their niche.
* The SG & HMG are under-performing; the AR & ScR are over-performing.
* CQC dynamics could use some attention; nerfing Rifle hipfire would be a good start.

I'd like nothing more than to support you for CPM, Aeon. I can think of no one more dedicated, trustworthy, or better suited for the job. Furthermore, I think you could do alot to encourage CCP to balance Scouts against other frames. But before I can support you, I need you to start taking non-AR-514 perspectives into account. We Scouts need someone who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade; someone who is willing to work toward balance, even it involves chipping away on occasion at his own entitlements.

We talk about "fixing TTK" and how it'll make everything better. Today's AR and ScR are the predominant force behind the TTK problem. You've all but said you're opposed to any changes to the AR. How can we explore a solution without addressing a primary cause of the problem?

To relate this particular post to this particular thread, I'm willing to bet that CCP has balanced the New Rifles against existing, vastly over-powered Rifles, and has paid negligible consideration to niche weapons like HMGs, Shotguns and Laser Rifles. I REALLY hope I'm wrong here -- CCP has surprised me before -- but I'm inclined to weigh the past as primary predictor of the future.

Let's see how the Shotgun holds up against a Rail Rifle at point-blank-range.

I've seen & read stats for the CR and RR, where is the stats for ion pistol,bolt pistol,magsec smg ?? Are they even being released in 1.7 ? W'sup with the lack of info CCP? Please tell me its for keepin FOTM players in the dark

Good Blog and nice to get confirmation that these weapon will in fact be ready to deploy with the 1.7 update.

I think my biggest issue is not with these weapons but with the Damage Profile chart included in the piece. I have always felt that there is not enough differentiation in a particular weapon's effectiveness against shields and armor. Each racial variant is suppose to have noticeable characteristics that make it more or less ideal depending on the fitting of your opponent. For instance, laser is more effective against shield than armor, while explosives is just the opposite.

Yet when you are actually in the game using these weapons, the differences in effectiveness are hardly noticed. Lasers seem to cut through armor like butter. Explosives blast through shields with ease. This makes each weapon feel less unique and ultimately dismisses any real need for choice by removing any guess-work because the pluses and minuses for each weapon are arbitrary.

Changes should be made help make the benefits or handicaps of a weapon feel more pronounced. One way is by increasing the gap in damage profile percentages. Here are some examples:

• Hybrid (Plasma) - Shield +10% / Armor -20%
• Hybrid (Railgun) - Shield -20% / Armor +10%
• Projectile - Shield -30% / Armor +15%
• Laser - Shield +20% / Armor -35%
• Explosive - Shield -35% / Armor +20%

The above percentages would probably give each weapon a more niche feeling and encourage players to be more selective in both their custom fittings and engagements. It would also promote teamwork since players using different weapons can work together to bring down an enemy more efficiently.

Another option would be to adjust individual weapon proficiency skills to affect damage output differently against shields and armor. For example, increased proficiency into Scrambler Rifles would give the added damage bonus of 2% per level to Shields but it would cause a 1% damage loss to armor as well.

These types of changes make the weapon capabilities more distinct. It also might help remedy current issues with quick TTK that improvements in aiming and hit detection have caused. It reduces damage output to all weapons in some capacity but is not a full nerf to all of a weapon's performance capability.

Comments welcome