DUST Search - Request for assistance from CPM on infantry weapons

Fox Gaden wrote:

Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:

My suspicion is that the use of the four rifles are a bit more evenly mixed than folks think AND that most engagements happen in ranges where all the rifles can compete.

I suspect that you are right on the engagement range. I think though that a lot of people went to the RR and CR because they were new, which meant that after 1.7 you did not see the AR and ScR as often. This directs much of the QQ towards those two new Infantry Rifles.

However, all Automatic Weapons got a significant boost when hit detection was fixed (1.5?), while high Alpha weapons did not benefit as greatly and were left behind a bit. That will have to be addressed when the Time To Kill issue is worked out.

Final point to consider, is that the impact of the Rail RifleGÇÖs charge up time on total damage dealt will be less significant when there is a longer Time To Kill. However, Clip size may become more of an issue.

There are a lot of variables to be considered in extending TTK to a reasonable amount while maintaining balance.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 702	Posted - 2014.01.30 04:11:00 - [1] - Quote CPM Members, I posted a similar item in a RR QQ thread in the general discussion a few moments ago and It struck me that you might be able to shed a bit of light on things or perhaps request some data from CCP to inform the player base of how things are shaking out with infantry weapons since 1.7 dropped and perhaps lead to some more constructive feedback for the potential 1.8 changes. Thanks for your assistance. - Jaysyn (From seperate thread in GD) The RR qq is getting pretty crazy. My opinion is well known on the subject - i'm not a fan of nerfing much of anything right now. However, I would like to see a couple stat graphs from CCP that illustrate the following data points: 1) Number of kills (raw and percentage) by all infantry weapons since 1.7 2) Kills by engagement range since 1.7...break it into roughly Close, Short, Mid, Long, Extreme 3) Total average kill range of all weapons combined and average kill range per weapon. Most of us are going on subjective observations and using math back and forth with varying degrees of accuracy and effect. I think if we get CCP to show us actual data that would inform all of our thoughts on this. Using the data points above you can see how things are truly shaking out amongst all infantry weapons (excluding AV launchers). Most of the forum consists of vertarn players and I think this shades the observations a bit. When an experienced player picks up a new weapon and even just skills it to Lvl I they can be effective with it but its a different story for lower SP players...the RR and SCR particularly are not kind to newer players. My suspicion is that the use of the four rifles are a bit more evenly mixed than folks think AND that most engagements happen in ranges where all the rifles can compete. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 703	Posted - 2014.01.30 19:59:00 - [2] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: My suspicion is that the use of the four rifles are a bit more evenly mixed than folks think AND that most engagements happen in ranges where all the rifles can compete. I suspect that you are right on the engagement range. I think though that a lot of people went to the RR and CR because they were new, which meant that after 1.7 you did not see the AR and ScR as often. This directs much of the QQ towards those two new Infantry Rifles. However, all Automatic Weapons got a significant boost when hit detection was fixed (1.5?), while high Alpha weapons did not benefit as greatly and were left behind a bit. That will have to be addressed when the Time To Kill issue is worked out. Final point to consider, is that the impact of the Rail RifleGÇÖs charge up time on total damage dealt will be less significant when there is a longer Time To Kill. However, Clip size may become more of an issue. There are a lot of variables to be considered in extending TTK to a reasonable amount while maintaining balance. Generally, I feel the rifles are as balanced with each other as we've ever seen and there is quite a bit of attention on the RR and CR due to relative newness. This is primarily why I'm not for buff / nerfing the weapons until that next round of weapons AND dropsuit changes come in. Balance is tough till you have all the pieces on the board and actually see how they work with each other. I am full time RR user and I can see the arguments of those that want the weapon nerfed, however, I could find things on all the weapons that could be just as valid a candidate for a nerf or tweak. My number one concern is that tweaking the charge time will have much more significant impact than most folks realize. Most folks don't understand how that works in live play since they don't use it as much as some of us...for me it works as intended and I go to my Ishakone ASMG often. My sidearm accounts for about a 25% of my kills and occaisionally higer in CQC maps. My reason for asking for hard data from CCP is that there are too many subjective or hidden variables that drive the subjective opinions. An "OP" weapon discussion rarely accounts for the #1 factor of relative player skill. Additional factors that are nearly impossible to account for are dropsuit fitting, dmg mods, and SP invested in a specific weapon. All those factors drive the discussion on a given weapon and I'm trying to avoid the Pitchforck and Torches Club from effecting ANY weapon, suit, or equipment without actual data to inform the community. "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 703	Posted - 2014.01.30 21:33:00 - [3] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: With TTK adjustments announced but not detailed I would wait until its blue tagged before making anymore observations. While your feedback is invaluable things are moving faster than some players can respond to right now. I understand that and in many ways welcome the accelerated rate of activity even with the obvious drawbacks. That said, the data pull I've nominated to the CPM could be very useful to the community and would likely lead to some very constructive points being brought out by the community or perhaps more rapidly by the CPM council themselves. Will you be able relay the request for information to CCP? if so, in odds that it will receive a response? "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 709	Posted - 2014.02.02 16:09:00 - [4] - Quote Bump "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 713	Posted - 2014.02.03 04:18:00 - [5] - Quote My basic assumption was that a certain degree of public stats available would be preferable to the raw speculation that we usually get. I agree that some folks have a tough time discerning the trends or patterns in the stats that are available, however, some of us in the community could probably use them to good effect or at least inform the conversation in the community. Sounds like you are pretty confident that CCP has little interest in gathering or making public this kind of information and you see little point in it either. I do appreciate you responding seeing as other CPM members haven't as of yet (or likely won't). "Third star to the right...straight ahead 'till morning."