DUST Search - RR sacrifices no DPS compared to AR, gains huge range

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

[quote=Marlin Kirby][quote=KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf]

1 - So we want the same thing. The question is to what degree. I gave the odds 3/5 in favor of the AR. What would be your preference?

1) I would like it if 2 players of equal skill fight at close range, one with RR, another with AR, that the AR one always wins. Just like right now if 2 players of equal skill fight at long range, the RR user will win. The RR user should be able to win at close range if he is sufficiently more skilled than the AR user, but its hard to quantify skill to say how much more skill he would need compared to the AR-wielding enemy.

KAGE..."always wins" is pretty strong. That's what would pretty much ruin the RR - when it stops being at least functional across the spectrum of engagements that's when folks aren't going use it. How would the "always wins" paradigm work for CR and SCR? Where should they always win?

I think the biggest concern is the engagement range...that's what ultimately makes it a concern and it's really difficult to balance. The SCR delivers more damage, the CR has better ROF, and the AR out preforms all in CQC (at least on paper), and the signature advantage of the RR is the range. All the other signature strengths seem to be more palatable for understandable reasons.

I wonder what the average engagement range for kills would be over, say, a given week or month. I think you would find that the vast majority of kills fall into the a range band that all four racial rifles can at least effect.

Always wins if 2 players are of equal skill (which hardly ever happens). If the RR user is more skilled than the AR user; then the RR user should win, or be capable of winning; not sure how more more skill should be required compared to the AR user, but I'm not saying the AR user should win always no matter what, period.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 692	Posted - 2014.01.24 23:09:00 - [1] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The RR has to spool up as a close range disadvantage, but the problem is the spool up time is so negligible Considering you did the math I guess you realize that the AR does 116 damage in the time it takes the RR to spool up? Is that not a serious advantage for the RR user? I would strongly advice against doubling the spool up time. I barely use the RR, but I feel that it would be completely gone if spool-up was increased by more than maybe 0.1 of a second. Well, it's supposed to be a meaningful drawback in CQC, and the spool up is negligible in general at long ranges since you can generally dictate when that engagement begins I think the spool up is a probably the toughest thing to balance around. It has to be spot on to make it at least functional in CQC or worthless. If the RR has to have a tweak then hip fire accuracy would be the way to go i think. My most significant caution on this is how do you "balance" weapons in relation to player skill? The .25sec spool time might be barely noticeable to a skilled player but working exactly as intended for an average player. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 694	Posted - 2014.01.25 23:53:00 - [2] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: I don't want it to be completely useless at close range, but I want close range weapons that only function at close range to have an actual edge against the RR at close range since that is their niche. RR has almost identical DPS compared to the AR, and the spool up time doesn't make enough of a difference in CQC to really give close range weapons the edge they need. Why would anyone use an AR instead of RR? 0.5 spool up time would not make it useless in CQC, just give it enough of a disadvantage to balance out its range advantage. I would be fine if the RR's spool up time stays the same, but the DPS (preferably through ROF decrease) was reduced to make the AR shine in its own element. AR should have a clear DPS advantage. I also think you are underestimating the medium and long range weapon usefulness. You don't have to get that close to an objective to make a difference, from 40-50 meters away you can clear an objective from enemies and be very useful. Yeah, I'm an armor tanker, but I don't let it cloud my judgement when it comes to balance; I have always defended the mass driver from claims of it being OP despite being susceptible to it. I didn't make the thread because RRs kill me KAGE, first I have a lot of respect for your opinions and I appreciate the mature and logical approach when laying this out. My isssue and I think to degree Martin Kirby's is the effect of the charge time is NOT the way to go on balancing this rifle specifically. There are other ways of controlling or shaping the balance of the base weapons. I have a very similar experience with Martin in CQC - the intended effect of the spool time does in fact put me at a real disadvantage. In fact, I routinely switch to my SMG when pushing into an OBJ or transitioning through tight areas of the maps to gain back that critical reaction time. I don't think anyone doubts this is a difficult area to determine how to use the subtlest of touches to achieve the desired effect on weapon function or balance between weapons. I think the spool time is one of those factors that can legitmately ruin a weapon if you go a shade overboard with the tweak. Additionally, this is one of the few drawback mechanics that do not have some method of offsetting them; examples would be Amarr advantages for SCR overheat, Minmatar bonuses ref. ammo supply, and in the skill trees how you tone down dispersion, recoil, and ammo capacity via SP investment. The concern of tapping R1 to overcome the spool issue can be fixed. Similar to how large rail turrets work if you balk on the trigger (come off it before firing a round) you incur an increased charge delay. The most logical area to tweak seems to be the hip fire accuracy. You could lower that factor and that would make a fair amount of sense...this is a pretty common trade off for distance weapons in other games. In the same vein you could slightly increase the hip fire accuracy of the AR to give an even greater advantage to the opposite racial (i.e. caldari vs gallente) weapon. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 695	Posted - 2014.01.26 00:01:00 - [3] - Quote Quick addendum...to my previous post. If the Caldari CQC weapon (MagSec SMG) had no charge time I would think it much more acceptable to tweak the spool time of the RR. That would actually make a lot of sense...Caldari dominate in long range and prefer that style but it doesn't mean they wouldn't use one of their other weapon options to mitigate that disadvantage. I've also noticed the MagSec currenlty lists a .3 sec charge time, more than the current RR. That leads me to believe they will probably increase the RR spool time to .3 sec. This further high lights my point that the MagSec should fill a gap in the base rifle capability by having the spool time be lowered with at least SP investment in the skill tree. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 695	Posted - 2014.01.26 04:48:00 - [4] - Quote Marlin Kirby wrote: But why does everyone call me "Martin?" It "Marlin," M-A-R-L-I-N. You know, like the fish. Apologies! I should have caught that. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 695	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:23:00 - [5] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: [quote=Marlin Kirby][quote=KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf] 1 - So we want the same thing. The question is to what degree. I gave the odds 3/5 in favor of the AR. What would be your preference? 1) I would like it if 2 players of equal skill fight at close range, one with RR, another with AR, that the AR one always wins. Just like right now if 2 players of equal skill fight at long range, the RR user will win. The RR user should be able to win at close range if he is sufficiently more skilled than the AR user, but its hard to quantify skill to say how much more skill he would need compared to the AR-wielding enemy. KAGE..."always wins" is pretty strong. That's what would pretty much ruin the RR - when it stops being at least functional across the spectrum of engagements that's when folks aren't going use it. How would the "always wins" paradigm work for CR and SCR? Where should they always win? I think the biggest concern is the engagement range...that's what ultimately makes it a concern and it's really difficult to balance. The SCR delivers more damage, the CR has better ROF, and the AR out preforms all in CQC (at least on paper), and the signature advantage of the RR is the range. All the other signature strengths seem to be more palatable for understandable reasons. I wonder what the average engagement range for kills would be over, say, a given week or month. I think you would find that the vast majority of kills fall into the a range band that all four racial rifles can at least effect. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 695	Posted - 2014.01.26 06:47:00 - [6] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: [quote=Marlin Kirby][quote=KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf] 1 - So we want the same thing. The question is to what degree. I gave the odds 3/5 in favor of the AR. What would be your preference? 1) I would like it if 2 players of equal skill fight at close range, one with RR, another with AR, that the AR one always wins. Just like right now if 2 players of equal skill fight at long range, the RR user will win. The RR user should be able to win at close range if he is sufficiently more skilled than the AR user, but its hard to quantify skill to say how much more skill he would need compared to the AR-wielding enemy. KAGE..."always wins" is pretty strong. That's what would pretty much ruin the RR - when it stops being at least functional across the spectrum of engagements that's when folks aren't going use it. How would the "always wins" paradigm work for CR and SCR? Where should they always win? I think the biggest concern is the engagement range...that's what ultimately makes it a concern and it's really difficult to balance. The SCR delivers more damage, the CR has better ROF, and the AR out preforms all in CQC (at least on paper), and the signature advantage of the RR is the range. All the other signature strengths seem to be more palatable for understandable reasons. I wonder what the average engagement range for kills would be over, say, a given week or month. I think you would find that the vast majority of kills fall into the a range band that all four racial rifles can at least effect. Always wins if 2 players are of equal skill (which hardly ever happens). If the RR user is more skilled than the AR user; then the RR user should win, or be capable of winning; not sure how more more skill should be required compared to the AR user, but I'm not saying the AR user should win always no matter what, period. Sounds like the AR is pretty close to delivering what you are asking acording to the stats you posted earlier. If two guys of same skill, same dropsuit fits, proto AR vs RR and engage each other at the same time the AR wins the DPS race. Let's say they are strafe dancing and not all shots hit and the engagement and things extend. The reload time for the RR is significantly faster and you stack on the .25sec charge time against an evading opponent...major advantage to AR user. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 696	Posted - 2014.01.26 18:30:00 - [7] - Quote Good points...however, I think the thrust of our discussion was AR vs RR in CQC, right? The RR works at the range it's supposed to. The RR, SCR, and CR work across the board...so really are we talking about the "RR is OP and needs nerf" or does the AR just need to be tweaked in it's optimal area? A bit of my concern is that you nerf the long range weapon too much and the CQC optimized weapon is still perceived as underpreforming against SCR / CR due to engagement ranges/ROF/alpha damage. The effect would be people just use the SCR and CR since it has the broadest overlap of engagement ranges. I honestly wonder if there are ways to fix some of these issues without crushing one weapon over the other...that seems to be the washing machine cycle of aggravation. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 701	Posted - 2014.01.28 20:44:00 - [8] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: Good points...however, I think the thrust of our discussion was AR vs RR in CQC, right? The RR works at the range it's supposed to. The RR, SCR, and CR work across the board...so really are we talking about the "RR is OP and needs nerf" or does the AR just need to be tweaked in it's optimal area? A bit of my concern is that you nerf the long range weapon too much and the CQC optimized weapon is still perceived as underpreforming against SCR / CR due to engagement ranges/ROF/alpha damage. The effect would be people just use the SCR and CR since it has the broadest overlap of engagement ranges. I honestly wonder if there are ways to fix some of these issues without crushing one weapon over the other...that seems to be the washing machine cycle of aggravation. The CR's range is closer to the AR, so its higher DPS compared to the RR would be justified, though I think its likely OP. The SCR can only fire 15 quick shots before damaging and paralyzing its user with overheat. I feel the rifles in general are too effective compared to other weapons, so I would rather seem them nerfed than buffed (RR more than the others since it is the best). I definitely agree that the rifles and other weapon options need to be evened out with each other. You and I both know that's easier said than done or you quickly go back to MD rounds landing like rain every match. I actually think we could work a bit of the RR vs AR issue by changing the racial weapon classes around. How about shift the Caldari weapons to the Tactical role and lower the damage per shot by about 15% but leave the other characteristics alone. It does have the longest range which fits well with the descriptions and the lowered dmg per shot gives the AR more of an edge in CQC. Give the Amarr the breach role since that implies high alpha damage and the SCR certainly fits that. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."