Your not factoring in the shield efficacy bonus gal plasma rifle has. Your also not comparing 2 of the same versions of weapon, the gek or duvolle should only be comparable with the sl4 or iskukone.

really RR isent OP only the combat is a bit, the only reason your getting killed so quikely is becuase your amour tanking and your at their optimal range, RR at point blank range does half the damage
AR noob

NO ITS NOT


RR have -15% to armor and +10% or +15% to shield
when AR have -5% to shield and +5 to armor or something like that


so when u go against Armor u loos

AR has a fatser TTK and a higher ROF meaning its easier to hit your target and quiker to take them down.

AR works better against shields.

RR has spool up, which limits DPS in the first second.

Neither were taken into account by the OP.

......................................__................................................
.............................,-~*`-»lllllll`*~,......................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll-»`*-,...........................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,.....................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\..................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\.................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,...............
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(-»`*,`,.................
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)....................
.................\,-*`-»,*`)............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)-»`~,..................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........-»```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........
Mayby becuase you havent relised as you never used the 'OP' RR but having an increased optimal reange means at close range it Does Less Damage try briging a RR at close range agaist a AR, your sure to lose

Last time i checked this was true to all guns

.
even if the close range thing isent true have you taken the fact of the spool timer?,
0.5 seconds is important in an FPS

great the quots glitched

i thought the spool was 0.5 sec?

well my game is off as its late in my country but umm still thats 116Hp AR can put more into an enemy then a RR
Also RR is less accurate, remember it has recoil

You put one bad idea into the forums and watch the natives go nuts repeating that bad idea. This is typical in this forum. The tank thread brought about the idea of removing the redline....which is very bad idea by short sighted folks. Let's not forget the AR, that needed a nerf but folks wanted to exclude the fact that there were a less amount of racial weapon variants available at the time, so of course majority of folks had ARs and of course it seemed too lethal when folks been popping its triggers for months on end.

Now its the RR. In which the pattern continues yet again. Over abundance is what drives this. An over abundance of death. An over abundance of its usage. Those two things push the idea that the RR must be nerfed somehow.

Also, people flocking to RR is nothing more than the option in COD that allows you to gain the same weapons as you recent killer. So folks get killed by RR, they run and get the RR. Which furthers pushes the idea to many who fall to it that somehow it needs to be nerfed since, more deaths has come from the RR and more people are learning how to use the rifle.

The question is, if it were the CR, would it happen the same way? More than likely, yes. The problem here is that the community, as stated many times before, don't think objectively when viewing the unique problems. They would have the charge time increased and if so, causes those FOTM users to switch over since its been changed. Then they would probably try the CR and then the CR will become famous. Then the community will cry for the nerf hammers for that as well, without thinking that, hey, plenty deaths and usage doesn't equate to it being nerfed.

The same thing happened with tanks. Tanks on the first day of the changes, were flooding the field. Instead of folks thinking that it will all pass because its the new toys, they cry "Tank 514!!!" from the top of their lungs because of the over abundance of usage and deaths. Tanks are nowhere near the same problem that it once was when the changes came. No one is talking about that though.

This is the never ending facepalming formula that I have experienced on these forums time and time again. It never stops and they never learn. The community, better yet the majority of the community, is hell bent on nerfing anything that kills them too much or is used too much. So essentially, they are wanting to nerf the users of those items. But you can't do that, so you just nerf the weapons that they use in attempt to find something that would give them even ground. Nevermind that skill has nothing to do with this. He killed me with that too many times, that's gotta be nerfed.

This is happened in COD, where dual wielding SMGs were strong and killed many. Same thing with Halo with the battle rifle.

I enjoy coming to the forums, but it boogles me sometimes how people view this game and view what needs to be nerfed or not. If the opinions were objective, then I wouldn't have much to say. But they aren't.

Doesn't RR have Dmg bonus to armour and the AR has a Dmg bonus to shields?

Otherwise good writeup :)

AR
Damage profile: -10% shields, +10% armor

RR
Damage profile: +10% shields, -10% armor


The shields/armor advantages and disadvantages cancel each other out since neither has a bigger bonus or disadvantage to their respective strong point (shield or armor) than the other.

It's obvious my post is saying that I'm tired of hearing these RR nerf necessity threads. I understand what you're saying, I'm not a brain dead mercenary here. Your bandwagon thread lead me to create that long post.

Second, the RR is just fine the way it is. Just what is supposed to do in close range? Spray confetti at you with clown horns to boot?

DPS? It's a freakin rail rifle with rail technology!! Of course the DPS is going to be pretty big!!!

Smh

LOL but in another thread, you would state that the weapon must be bound to the lore!!!! C'mon man, are you for real? It sounds like alot of you guys need to toughen up a bit

I have no got damn reason why you people are complaining about to AR... Just because there's a weapon that can out range the AR? I swear...

I can out gun a rr user on my altar with gek from the AR option range.... You know how? BY STRAFING

Glad to see someone got the brains and the toughness to find ways to succeed. I respect that sir, honestly.

o7

The spool up time screws me all the damn time, KAGE. Especially when I'm using the non-assault version, especially when the enemy has cover nearby and playing peek-a-boo, and especially when the enemy is a heavy.

Being flanked during CQC is also a common bane to me because turning, acquiring, and firing a target takes a quarter second longer. This is a life-time in CQC engagements. However, this isn't nearly as big as a problem for the aRR because of the higher DPS.

Doubling the charge-up time would probably make the RR the way of the flaylock (dodo). It would become far too situational to use like Mass Driver or Laser Rifle. CCP doesn't exactly have a good track record of balancing weapons being nerfed, this includes my understand of how they treat EVE.



Then nerf the scanners. This can be applied to any weapon.
__________________________________

Lastly, I want to note that everyone is saying that CCP is going to reduce the base damage of almost every weapon. I don't know enough because I need to follow up on news more often.

However, demanding a nerf for any weapon, regardless of how overpowered it is, when the gungame itself is in the process of being changed is a bad idea. Everyone here is talking about the 1.7 RR, not 1.#whatever RR.

In my honest opinion, this discusion should be postponed until after the gungame is apparently eventually modified.

3/10 troll attempt.

Just to be clear, I know you have the best intentions in mind, KAGE. I know you want what's best for the game with true balance, unlike other people who just want their weapon/equipment/vehicle of choice to be king of everything.

Regarding your post, yes I do because objectives are in CQC situations. The RR should be in a small disadvantage, not unusable. If I can't even use a weapon in CQC then there is no point in using it. That is why snipers are useless in games like these.

In my opinion, every rifle except for sniper-like weapons should be usable at almost any range. If two people, one with an AR and the other with a RR, with equal FPS skill shoot each other in CQC, the guy with the AR should win 3/5 times and vice versa. The extreme of 9/10 times is irrational. I think part of the problem here is that people are getting killed in CQC a few times and people complain forgetting all the times when the RR guy didn't even get a chance to fire because of the charge time. If someone gets the up on someone else, regardless if he/she has a RR, he/she is usually going to win.

Not to sound accusational (is that a word?), are those who think the RR is OP mainly armor tank or have used the weapon? I ask this genuinely because I shield tank and I don't have a real problem with enemy RRs. And because I shield tank, I naturally think the ScR is OP, but I know that's unfair because then I'd be complaining about a weapon designed to kill my playstyle. I did think the Flaylock and Mass Driver was OP because explosive weapons was easily killing me, I believed I had merit there.

One of the issues I was having before the new rifles came out was how much more difficult it was for me to kill armor tankers because of my AR couldn't be used effectively against them. Things were made more difficult as more and more people armor tanked. At the same time, fewer and fewer people complained about the AR and ScR.....except for scouts of course. I don't know for sure, but I think it takes about the same amount of rounds to kill an ADV Gallente guy opposed to an ADV Caldari guy because of the nature of high hp armor and low hp shields with the hybrid-rail bonuses. This would take some complex math that I don't have time for right now. Would someone else mind doing the math for 422/150 vs. 150/500(?) with an ADV RR?

I suspect (but cannot confirm) that the armor guys met their one weakness, now that FL and MD are a rarity, and complaining about it. I wish a had stats on the Dust market place so I could prove or deny my hypothesis.

This outrageously long message was brought to you by The not Logic Bomb! Where no logic or stats were used, but sure wish he had them to prove some points.

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.

Sorry could you break down your DPS calculation for me.

Wait the RR hits 60 damage a shot then?

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?

2 - I think it does make a difference. One of my biggest gripes about the gun is the charge-up time. While the initial delay takes away potential damage being done it also takes away the ability to fire sometimes at all. Remember when I said the enemy will occasionally play "peek-a-boo?" If the enemy knows I'm around, he has a even larger advantage oppose if I was using any other rifle.

3. - The quarter second is already a huge hindrance. See #2

4. - That would be better, but again, CCP has a horrible track record for nerfing weapons. I just hope it isn't too much. I may not think the RR is OP, but if it really needs to be nerfed, then this the way to go about it, not increasing the charge time.

5. - Only if you have the significant high ground and I still need to push up eventually.

6. - Then why did you make it? Because everyone else was complaining about it? I once made a thread (which I don't believe in anymore because of aim-assist [seriously, get rid of aim-assist]) that the camera shake from explosions should be reduced or removed. That was my solution to the problem. Had nothing to do with damage or blast radius.



One of the problems with this game it that there are so many weird weapons that don't appear in any other game, the LR being one of them. I have no idea how to effectively balance the LR.

If it were up to me, I'd have the chromosome LR brought back. That thing kicked my ass, but still terrible in CQC. Still would have LR users use an SMG or something instead. Effectively making it like a MG42 from WWII.

This thread isn't about the LR though.

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.

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 extends. 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.

Nerf rr damage by 15%, or RoF by 20%.
Either make it so you need more thab 5 shots to kill someone, or make it so those 5 shots need to be consecutive.

Currently it's 'spray this 42 shot clip till 6-8 land correctly, then i win!' With AR it's 'spray 5/6 of this clip to maybe kill them'
CR it's 'time these bursts JUST RIGHT, AND keep on target 86% of the time, and -maybe- i'll kill them.'
With SCR it's 'spam this for the right time-frame, or just charge shot it correctly'

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.

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.

Some people are in love with their op gun, I hope they're lying because the amount of ignorance is ridiculous. And no I'm not just bashing Rr users, even though I use it enough to know how it functions, in some cases the Cr seems decently sketchy. I feel like only the ar isn't AS blatantly stronger than every other non rifle, it's still better by a decennt margin still but not as strong.

And before anyone claims bias I've dumped sp into every rifle.

You said it yourself.
Its just tough luck.
If it was 10 guys with CR or SCR or even ARs... It doesnt make a difference. They would still own since they are proto stomping.
I get your issue because of the RR the range got you zoned, but imagine fighting at CQ vs 6+ Proto CR users? You wont have the chance to even blink and you will be dead.

RR is powerful,but very situational.

I know i CANT convince you, but i think RR are not OP....

You really can't decide the OPness of a weapon from a pub match perspective. CR is lethal. You don't know that. Go into a more competitive arena...say PC, and you will see the CR rip you to shreds.

So what. I kill tons of rr users. S h I t I kill these rr guys with breach ar.

Rail rifle is only range.

You putting words in my mouth. But let me explain to keep you from making further assumptions and guess on what I'm implying.

I'm not saying that PC is the only place that can decide what's OP or not. I didn't even say that, you assumed that. I say two things. First, I say pub matches are not a good base to decide them on. Pub matches are pub matches. They are not that competitive for one. The majority of players does that COD perk(forget name) in Dust. Meaning, they will see what they got killed with several times in a row and spec into it after match. Which unfortunately causes a viral reaction to many players who follow the same route.

The second states that in more competitive arenas where the battles are hard fought, folks don't use the RR and slaughter with the CR. This does not state that PC is better grounds to decide the nerfs and buffs on.

The latter is quite interesting because coming to the forums, you would think that RR is trump. But players who are without the narrow vision can see that SCR and CR are more of problem than the RR.

So basically, I find it interesting if we look at the ENTIRE data block instead of just judging from public matches and looking at its stats. Cause in action, and in different circumstances, the RR wouldn't be trump.

Just like when folks talk about protostomping. Nothing is mentioned but this happens in Ambush more than any other game modes. Yet, to a new onlooker, you would think prototypes are running wild in all game modes. Yet the person who made the post only judged from his immediate, being that the only game mode he mostly plays is Ambush. So he really has no sense of the game as a whole since he's only judging from that game mode's perspective. Put him in Skirm/Dom, he wouldn't say the same.

That's what I'm talking about here. Having the WHOLE data, not just basing it on what has been experienced in pubs. Especially since there has been mercs who have stated that in PC, the RR isn't even king or instances where mercs where destroyed by CR users(me being a victim, several times) and they had RR in their hands.

If the RR is easymode, then how come they couldn't beat the CR user? You cannot come to a conclusive statement without having all the data. You not having all the data continues to skew the viewpoint of players who have no knowledge base to judge from. So when they do play and get killed twice by the RR, they instantly say, "he's right! The RR is OP!"

So wrong and why changes voiced by the community is often met with scrutiny.

That's the problem with this discussion. When more data comes into play, you refute it. Instead of considering the data, if it doesn't sound like its on your bandwagon, you don't want to talk about it. You view it negatively.

But yet you want to have changes done that involves affecting the community but you don't want to hear their difference of opinion, from the community?

Smh.