DUST Search - Rifle Changes: Range and Damage Applications

Bojo The Mighty wrote:

As Effective range decreases, DPS should increase by relation

Therefor Rail Rifle should have the least Damage Per Second followed by Scrambler Rifle (ignoring charge) and increasing as we approach combat rifle and Assault Rifle having the highest DPS since its effective range is the least of the rifles. This should seem like common sense since weapons with shorter ranges are at a range disability, they should make up for it with a higher DPS value aka faster kills.

Damage Per Shot

With range, the damage per shot should increase. This is because at range it is essentially increasingly difficult to hit moving targets so each shot really needs to count and so thus Rail Rifle should have the most damage per shot followed by scrambler rifle, combat rifle, and assault rifle. This would mostly be because high range weapons need minimal kick to be effective at their ranges and thus a slower RoF which is compensated by a higher damage level.

Currently this only seems like common sense but as of now it's not being applied wholesomely to the game. Currently the Assault rifle is at both a range and DPS disadvantage to many if not all the other rifles. That does not make sense, to stack cons onto a weapon. If the game needs balance then why not have everything actually balanced? Where pros and cons offset eachother but cause the weapon to be used in a certain style. I'm not trying to cry specifically about the Assault Rifle but rather push for a range versus DPS versus damage scenario where there would be no unbalance (to your favor or lack there of) to your choice of rifle.

The rail rifle in terms of damage versus range currently follows suit however it has a DPS that defies its range. It's a simple equation where range decreases, DPS increases. It just makes sense.

The idea is to emphasize where effort is put into the mercenary. For example, Rail Rife users would need to expend minimal effort into traversing to get targets in range. The emphasis is put on being able to apply the damage over time and keep enemies from closing gaps. The ScR users would need to spend a little effort into getting in range but once they are there the rest of the battle is applying the damage over time and not allow gaps to be closed. As we get to CR and AR the battle becomes more about closing the gap then applying damage over time. Admittedly the weapons should not do everything for them, there should be no EZ mode. But really it should be a challenge for a Assault User to close the distance on the Rail Rifle user and for the rail rifle user to kill the Assault Rifle user before it is too late. That puts an emphasis on skill and strategy.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mordecai Sanguine What The French 395	Posted - 2014.02.06 23:18:00 - [1] - Quote Bojo The Mighty wrote: As Effective range decreases, DPS should increase by relation Therefor Rail Rifle should have the least Damage Per Second followed by Scrambler Rifle (ignoring charge) and increasing as we approach combat rifle and Assault Rifle having the highest DPS since its effective range is the least of the rifles. This should seem like common sense since weapons with shorter ranges are at a range disability, they should make up for it with a higher DPS value aka faster kills. Damage Per Shot With range, the damage per shot should increase. This is because at range it is essentially increasingly difficult to hit moving targets so each shot really needs to count and so thus Rail Rifle should have the most damage per shot followed by scrambler rifle, combat rifle, and assault rifle. This would mostly be because high range weapons need minimal kick to be effective at their ranges and thus a slower RoF which is compensated by a higher damage level. Currently this only seems like common sense but as of now it's not being applied wholesomely to the game. Currently the Assault rifle is at both a range and DPS disadvantage to many if not all the other rifles. That does not make sense, to stack cons onto a weapon. If the game needs balance then why not have everything actually balanced? Where pros and cons offset eachother but cause the weapon to be used in a certain style. I'm not trying to cry specifically about the Assault Rifle but rather push for a range versus DPS versus damage scenario where there would be no unbalance (to your favor or lack there of) to your choice of rifle. The rail rifle in terms of damage versus range currently follows suit however it has a DPS that defies its range. It's a simple equation where range decreases, DPS increases. It just makes sense. The idea is to emphasize where effort is put into the mercenary. For example, Rail Rife users would need to expend minimal effort into traversing to get targets in range. The emphasis is put on being able to apply the damage over time and keep enemies from closing gaps. The ScR users would need to spend a little effort into getting in range but once they are there the rest of the battle is applying the damage over time and not allow gaps to be closed. As we get to CR and AR the battle becomes more about closing the gap then applying damage over time. Admittedly the weapons should not do everything for them, there should be no EZ mode. But really it should be a challenge for a Assault User to close the distance on the Rail Rifle user and for the rail rifle user to kill the Assault Rifle user before it is too late. That puts an emphasis on skill and strategy. So.....You want SCR to have : Lower DPS. Skill requirement. Higher recoil. Overheat. Semi-auto (yes it's a drawbavk). And 11PG for a STD version which is 30% of a STD suit. 20% penality on armor which is 50-80% of the ehp of any target. For....Nothing ? Well.....That's not very funny for a joke. Semi automatic weapons ALWAYS need higher DPS it's simply mathematic. In fact you don't resolve problems you just create NEW problem. Oh and in his range AR already have the best DPS exepting the Combat rifle which has the best dps over all weapons.