DUST Search - You nerfed the AR???????

Leadfoot10 wrote:

Toby Flenderson wrote:

Leadfoot10 wrote:

It was done to increase TTK.

The AR (and, oddly enough, the ScR) weren't nerfed as much as other weapons, so relatively speaking, they will have gotten stronger.

Math FTW.

Stronger than what? Certainly not their old stats. Stronger than other rifles? How do you figure? If a weapon A did 10 damage and and weapon B did 100 damage, we could reduce damage from weapon A by 10% and reduce the damage of weapon B by 50% to get 9 and 50 respectively. One wouldn't say that weapon A, relatively speaking, got stronger than weapon B even though it was needed less. If you're going to compare strengths of weapons you need to establish the two figures being compared. The only thing you can say, based on nerd percentages, is that the percentages are lower for weapon A compared to weapon B. This is far from saying one has gotten stronger. Weapon A still sucks compared to weapon B.

This isn't my way of saying any of the rifles suck but the claim that any go stronger "relatively speaking" doesn't make sense in this instance.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what relative means.

Said simply, the gap will have be narrowed between the AR and the CR/RR.

If you'd like, you can (a) calcualte the difference in DPS between the AR and the CR and RR, then compare that to (b) the revised difference in DPS post-nerf.

Please report back what you find....Leadfoot


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Toby Flenderson research lab 321	Posted - 2014.03.05 20:36:00 - [1] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: It was done to increase TTK. The AR (and, oddly enough, the ScR) weren't nerfed as much as other weapons, so relatively speaking, they will have gotten stronger. Math FTW. Stronger than what? Certainly not their old stats. Stronger than other rifles? How do you figure? If a weapon A did 10 damage and and weapon B did 100 damage, we could reduce damage from weapon A by 10% and reduce the damage of weapon B by 50% to get 9 and 50 respectively. One wouldn't say that weapon A, relatively speaking, got stronger than weapon B even though it was needed less. If you're going to compare strengths of weapons you need to establish the two figures being compared. The only thing you can say, based on nerd percentages, is that the percentages are lower for weapon A compared to weapon B. This is far from saying one has gotten stronger. Weapon A still sucks compared to weapon B. This isn't my way of saying any of the rifles suck but the claim that any go stronger "relatively speaking" doesn't make sense in this instance.
Toby Flenderson research lab 322	Posted - 2014.03.06 12:26:00 - [2] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Toby Flenderson wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: It was done to increase TTK. The AR (and, oddly enough, the ScR) weren't nerfed as much as other weapons, so relatively speaking, they will have gotten stronger. Math FTW. Stronger than what? Certainly not their old stats. Stronger than other rifles? How do you figure? If a weapon A did 10 damage and and weapon B did 100 damage, we could reduce damage from weapon A by 10% and reduce the damage of weapon B by 50% to get 9 and 50 respectively. One wouldn't say that weapon A, relatively speaking, got stronger than weapon B even though it was needed less. If you're going to compare strengths of weapons you need to establish the two figures being compared. The only thing you can say, based on nerd percentages, is that the percentages are lower for weapon A compared to weapon B. This is far from saying one has gotten stronger. Weapon A still sucks compared to weapon B. This isn't my way of saying any of the rifles suck but the claim that any go stronger "relatively speaking" doesn't make sense in this instance. I'm sorry that you don't understand what relative means. Said simply, the gap will have be narrowed between the AR and the CR/RR. If you'd like, you can (a) calcualte the difference in DPS between the AR and the CR and RR, then compare that to (b) the revised difference in DPS post-nerf. Please report back what you find....Leadfoot Gaps don't mean anything in terms of stronger and weaker, it's just a difference. These terms require two figures of the same type (damage per bullet/sec type figure) and claiming one has surpassed the other. Bringing them each closer to a lower value, say 0, does not somehow make them stronger, even relatively. The only time that you could claim that one became relatives stronger over the other in cases of nerds would be if the resulting figures flipped. What I mean is that if A > B pre-nerf and A < B post-nerf then you could say B became larger than A, relatively speaking, even if they values were both decreased. As this did not happen, claiming something got "stronger" is wrong.