Wait the RR hits 60 damage a shot then?

1. 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.

2 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?

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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

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

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.

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.

60.5 damage per shot at prototype.

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. If 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.

2-3) Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree whether its enough.

4) I'd willing to take the chance despite their track record.

5) Even on flat terrain, you will win fights at 40-50 meters with an RR because of damage dropoff of other weapons.

6) I made the thread because I found it way too good from experience; I only used the standard one with only lv1 operation, and I found it way too good. I also noticed the "tryhard" protostomp corps are disproportionately gravitating towards is (usually a sign something is OP). Because of these things I decided to do a bit of research, look at the ranges, the DPS, etc and found it in need of rebalancing. It started with a suspicion, but had the numbers contradicted my suspicions, then I would have adjusted my opinion accordingly.

But why does everyone call me "Martin?" It "Marlin," M-A-R-L-I-N. You know, like the fish.

[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 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.

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.

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.

Its getting really annoying

Just had 2 battles in a row where organized corps in proto all using rail rifles were dominating everyone, even at close range and my team wouldn't even bother spawning on the uplinks I set or CRUs I hack. 80% of my deaths were from rail rifles, I thought the weapon was OP for a while now, but this is the first time rail rifles made the game just stop being fun for me; I suppose protostomping is frustrating regardless of the weapon, but there is a reason why it is now their weapon of choice.

no becuase im not RR noob
im pilot speding most of my time in the sky but the time i spend on the ground i know that RR isent Op you just cant get over the fact that now there is more then 1 dominating gun,now there are 3.