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

Marlin Kirby wrote:

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

Marlin Kirby wrote:

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

Leadfoot10 wrote:

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

I did cover the spool up time, I said it wasn't enough to really make a difference. The massive range advantage still more than makes up for it.

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.
__________________________________
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 discussion should be postponed until after the gungame is apparently eventually modified.

Plenty of others have close range success with the RR contrary to your experience with one. You are not supposed to be effective at close range with it, as long as it is still great at medium to long range it will not go extinct. You are seriously making the case that a close range nerf to a medium-long range weapon is going to kill it.

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.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mortedeamor 1285	Posted - 2014.01.25 23:20:00 - [1] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: All stats are from prototype versions Ranges can be found here [Comparison] AR Range: 45m optimal, 78m effective DPS: (750 x 37.4 / 60) = 467.5 Damage profile: -10% shields, +10% armor RR Range: 75 optimal, 102 effective DPS: (461.54 x 60.5 / 60) Gëê 465.39 Damage profile: +10% shields, -10% armor [Analysis] The RR is basically the same as the AR DPS-wise (about s 2 point difference), but with waaaaaaaaay more range; the RR's optimal range is almost as high as the AR's effective range. For this massive range advantage. The only downside is a bit of kick, and a short spool up time. There is a problem. The RR must suffer disadvantages at close range (close range is meant to be the AR's domain) to counter its amazing long range, and lack of DPS sacrifice. The RR has to spool up as a close range disadvantage, but the problem is the spool up time is so negligible; this allows the RR to still be effective at close range. The RR has much more kick than the AR, but recoil only matters at long ranges. 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. there is a reason sniper rifles don't have the same DPS as ARs. Same DPS plus a lot more range = OP. While the RR isn't a sniper rifle, the same principle applies here [Solution] It needs to have a higher spool up time (0.5 seconds) to make it not as good in close range. A damage or ROF reduction might also be necessary, something with that much range should not have as much DPS. I actually think the RR and breach AR should switch ROF stats, the RR is too good, and the breach AR doesn't have anything going for it. +1 jihhhaders = av lvl 0 swarm master = av lvl 99+
Mortedeamor 1285	Posted - 2014.01.25 23:22:00 - [2] - Quote Marlin Kirby wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Marlin Kirby wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: RR has spool up, which limits DPS in the first second. I did cover the spool up time, I said it wasn't enough to really make a difference. The massive range advantage still more than makes up for it. 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. __________________________________ 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 discussion should be postponed until after the gungame is apparently eventually modified. Plenty of others have close range success with the RR contrary to your experience with one. You are not supposed to be effective at close range with it, as long as it is still great at medium to long range it will not go extinct. You are seriously making the case that a close range nerf to a medium-long range weapon is going to kill it. 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. if my lr worked just as well in cqc as everything else i wouldnt want the rr nerfed as is when compared to the other weapons in dust its cqc should be nerfed jihhhaders = av lvl 0 swarm master = av lvl 99+