|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
486
   |
Posted - 2014.03.05 23:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
*This is all given the information available. http://dust514.com/news/blog/2014/03/expanding-the-arsenal-with-uprising-1.8/
While not every problem is being addressed (Plasma cannon being best example), 1.8 addresses many of the problems that have popped up as a result of poor balance decisions in the past. Reduction in the power of the two clearly dominant rifles will go a long way towards other weapons being more viable. Changes to weapon proficiency skills will dramatically change the counterbalance system of weapon VS damage tank type. Overall, 1.8 will feature much more diversity and asymmetrical play that all other patches before it.
With the addition of auto aim, strafe nerf, and hit box detection improvement, Time to kill was reduced dramatically for hit-scan(Rifles/HMG/SMG/etc.) weapons. While some players welcomed the faster engagements, it made the game focus less on overall strategy and move the focus to the operational/tactical level. New additions (Combat/Rail rifles) achieved hegemony rapidly upon implementation. The overall effect of all these changes made dust lose what was unique about it in the first place; the strategic element. The overall strategic choices available on and off the battlefield were what made this game worth playing.
In this context it was obvious that TTK needed to be increased. CCP goes about that in a number of ways. They reduce the damage of rifles focusing primarily on the ones that are seen as the most overpowered(CR/RR also see near universal use in high level play). The combat rifle had replaced the AR as the primary choice for short/medium range encounters due to its ability to better engage targets at medium/long range AND its reduced fitting costs. The rail rifle became the new long range specialist and was still effective at close range(Completely dominating the Laser Rifle). This limited the variation even within the rifle class, which itself dominated all other weapon systems. The overall nerfs to rifle damage and specific extra focus given to the strongest of the class will allow for more viable play options. The biggest winners being MD + Laser rifle.
The second way they went about increasing TTK was reducing the damage bonus of damage mods. This change is more interesting. It affects armor tankers more than shield tankers and may unintentionally nerf AV. The fact that armor tankers use their low slots for tanking, leaves their high slots more available for damage mods. They tend to use more damage mods than shield tankers as a result. It also makes the Shield Extender/Damage Mod trade-off move more in the direction of the shield extender. Overall you should see people move more towards shield/dual tanking and using less damage mods. Given the dominance of armor tanking at the moment, this change should increase variety.
An (hopefully) unintended result of this is that already weak AV will be further weakened. AV fits almost universally stack as many damage mods as possible and even then, the forge gun is the only AV weapon that retains any effectiveness currently. Swarm launchers and the plasma cannon are woefully underpowered and the lack of buff to them is the largest oversight of the patch(I'd love to think that they just forgot to include the buff in the dev blog, but...)
The change that will help restore the strategic nature of the game the most though is the weapon proficiency change. By changing the damage bonus to make it only effect the tank-type that it is strong against, it will give players the ability to punish opponents for lack of variety. Different weapon systems will be more powerful depending on the choices that your opponents make. Simply spamming armor tanked characters will no longer be an option, as a team with combat rifles and mass drivers will dominate them. It makes off battlefield choices more valuable and increases variation. Simply put it is the best change of the patch.
1.8 isn't perfect but it is probably the best balance patch they have ever put out info on. I am impressed with what they have done for infantry balance, but have concerns that AV was unadressed, that the MD may turn out to be OP, and that the HMG may need an additional tweak(Likely slight nerf 5%). But they also surprised me with a pre-emptive change. The grenade nerf (3 max ammo->2) will be necessary when TTK once again returns to normal value. The relative strength of grenades was diminished when you could kill someone in under the time it took to detonate anyway. It shows that CCP is at the very least improving in terms of ability to balance the game and variation should increase accordingly. |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
486
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 23:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think people underestimate how strong damage mods are right now. They will still see some use. 5-11% is still significant. |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
487
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 23:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Fiddlestaxp wrote:I think people underestimate how strong damage mods are right now. They will still see some use. 5-11% is still significant. It just wont be the obvious choice anymore. 5-11%? It's 3-5%. Disturbingly Bored wrote:Total agreement, Arkena, except for one thing: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:The lack of an HMG nerf to ensure it doesn't immediately become a huge outlier in terms of DPS means that the HMG heavy will fail to create a 'longer TTK'. It will create a longer TTK because everyone will now be using high-HP Sentinel suits.  The Assault HMG will now do a full 44% more DPS than the Gallente Assault Rifle, and will likely outclass it at all possible engagement ranges. I suppose the part about sentinel spam is true, but that's going to be irritating for any non-HMG user. The assault HMG part is just depressing, honestly.
And armor tankers still might use 2 of them. At a certain point, % damage output will outweigh a % health increase. DMG output/EHP is the true deciding factor in an equal skill matchup.
The fact that HMG didn't receive a slight nerf seems to be an oversight. The damage mod nerf should go some distance towards alleviating that, as HMG users almost exclusively stack them at this point. |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
489
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 23:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Fiddlestaxp wrote:
And armor tankers still might use 2 of them. At a certain point, % damage output will outweigh a % health increase. DMG output/EHP is the true deciding factor in an equal skill matchup.
The fact that HMG didn't receive a slight nerf seems to be an oversight. The damage mod nerf should go some distance towards alleviating that, as HMG users almost exclusively stack them at this point.
No. Armour tankers will almost certainly stack shield extenders. It's a case of 140 HP vs 10% damage (and it isn't 11%, because of stacking penalties, even if they do work multiplicatively). Which would you honestly pick? In any scenario except against a scrambler rifle the 140 HP is better.
yeah :/. my bad on the math.. more like 9.5% |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
490
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 23:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
The AV/infantry balance is the real loser of this patch. Countering tanks will fall to having your own rail tanks even more than it is now. Creates two separate games; infantry vs infantry and tank vs tank. Not ideal |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
490
|
Posted - 2014.03.06 00:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Zahle Undt wrote:Fiddlestaxp wrote:The AV/infantry balance is the real loser of this patch. Countering tanks will fall to having your own rail tanks even more than it is now. Creates two separate games; infantry vs infantry and tank vs tank. Not ideal Except that their will still be tank vs infantry and it will be even more 1 sided unless tanks are getting some sort of nerf.
Agree. None of this is preferable. |
|
|
| |
|