DUST Search - An analysis of the GÇÿexpanding the arsenalGÇÖ devblog and TTK in 1.8

All Channels

General Discussions

An analysis of the GÇÿexpanding the arsenalGÇÖ devblog and TTK in 1.8

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10498	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:10:00 - [1] - Quote This is going to be a long thread. I would like this to be a productive discussion. Please refrain from comments such as GÇÿlol u nerdGÇÖ GÇÿu hav no life lolGÇÖ etc. At long last, weGÇÖve gotten a devblog on key changes to weaponry and modules affecting TTK. IGÇÖm sure everyone has probably seen the changes by now, but hereGÇÖs a quick summary: All rifles damage output nerfed, SMG also nerfed (12% plasma rifle, 10% scrambler rifle, 16% combat rifle, 9% assault combat rifle, 14% rail rifle, 9% SMG) Damage mods nerfed to 3%/4%/5% damage increase for standard/enhanced/complex. Proficiency skill changed from direct damage bonus to increased affinity damage (RR proficiency gives 15% bonus to armour rather than 15% to both shields and armour) Three new weapons introduced GÇô bolt pistol, magsec SMG, and ion pistol Mass drivers buffed significantly for damage Laser rifles buffed in range, scope, CQC damage, and heat build-up LetGÇÖs look at all of this in sections, and then look at the overall effect that these sweeping changes will have. [P1] Rifle comparisons [P2] Sidearm comparisons [P3] Damage mod changes [P4] Proficiency changes [P5] Overall effect analysis + predictions Firstly, letGÇÖs analyse the new stats of all the weapons. We will begin with straight DPS comparisons. Any weapon which will likely be unable to reach its maximum DPS because itGÇÖs a semi-automatic or burst weapon will be indicated with an asterisk . This excludes charge mechanics. DPS at standard: Assault plasma rifle: 375 Breach plasma rifle: 300 Burst plasma rifle: ~350 Tactical plasma rifle: 420* Scrambler rifle: 750* DPS Assault scrambler rifle: 380 DPS Combat rifle: 540* DPS Assault combat rifle: 380 DPS Rail rifle: 440 DPS Assault rail rifle: 375 DPS SMG: 350 DPS Scrambler Pistol: 530 DPS* Not including headshots Magsec SMG: 355 DPS Bolt pistol: 340 DPS Ion pistol: 310 DPS* HMG: 600 DPS What can we see from this? We can see that with the exception of the semi-automatic/burst weapons, all the DPS values are very similar for their class. The RR has significantly higher DPS than the other fully automatics, but it has a short charge time. Accounting for the charge time brings the weapon down to a similar DPS level. [P1] Rifle comparisons A very notable difference between rifles is the range profile. The plasma rifles have the shortest range, the combat rifles outranges the plasma rifle, the scrambler rifles outrange the combat rifles, and the rail rifles outrange all the other rifles. Range is, quite obviously, a significant advantage. A longer range than the opponent can offer a huge tactical edge. So naturally, if a weapon has a longer range than another, then if theyGÇÖre well balanced against each other the shorter ranged weapon will be better in another area. Here we have a set of weapons with very similar DPS stats and general operation, but varying ranges. Compare the ACR and the plasma rifle. The ACR does not fall down significantly in any major area compared to the plasma rifle. However, it beats the plasma rifle on range. I see this as a big problem. Look at the plasma assault rifle DPS. Look at the other assault weapons. There is very little DPS difference, but all of these other weapons outrange the plasma rifle. This is the case for the ASCR vs the ACR as well. The ARR isnGÇÖt as bad because of the charge time, but it too has similar DPS at a much, much greater range without any major penalties. Basic Rifle Comparison Summary/TL;DR: DPS differences between rifles are insignificant. Range differences are significant. The tradeoffs for longer range are insignificant. As a result, long range weapons are better in this model. Shorter ranged weapons should have a higher DPS from trading off range. They donGÇÖt. This should be corrected. Now letGÇÖs look at some discrepancies and silly things about the rifle class as a whole. Firstly, the plasma rifle variants. As a general rule, they are terrible. Before we start looking at each of them specifically, IGÇÖd just like to address this claim: forum myth wrote: the plasma rifles variants are knockoffs of the other rifles so they should be worse I find this statement to be completely inadequate. It is poor or lazy design to have a weapon that is simply GÇÿworseGÇÖ than others. Especially as the assault variants of the other weapons are GÇÿmimicsGÇÖ of the plasma assault rifle and yet are as good as or better than it. A prime example of the variants being bad is the breach assault rifle. Presently, it has the lowest DPS of any rifle, by a long margin. However, it is being nerfed by the same percentage as the main plasma rifle, and is being nerfed more than much stronger weapons such as the ACR. This is lazy work GÇô itGÇÖs not a case of the breach actually needing this nerf, because itGÇÖs blatantly obvious that it doesnGÇÖt. This appears to be simply a case of the breach having not been looked at as its own weapon and just hit with a blanket nerf. It is entirely unnecessary. As it happens, even with pre-nerf stats it would have the lowest DPS of any 1.8 rifle. LetGÇÖs look at the burst plasma rifle. The natural competitor to this weapon is the normal combat rifle. The two weapons, come 1.8, have exactly the same damage per shot. The combat rifle has a higher range and rate of fire, by a very significant margin. This is an example of two weapons that are not balanced against each other. The combat rifle is simply better than the burst assault rifle. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10498	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:10:00 - [2] - Quote This should not be the case. Both weapons should have roles, outperforming the other in one way but underperforming in comparison in another way. For this example, the shortest range plasma rifle would likely be better suited to having a higher damage per shot and DPS but notably lower RPM and range. That way, both weapons have their own role. LetGÇÖs look at the tactical plasma rifle. There is a similar situation here as with the other variants GÇô the weapon is simply outclassed. Compare it to the scrambler rifle. The TAR has less damage per shot, almost half the RoF (although on a semi-automatic the SCR RoF cap is never going to be reached, this makes oversampling a problem on the TAR), a much smaller range, and no charge shot function. There is no overheat, but the SCR overheats at a similar point to the TAR needing to reload, so functionally they are not dissimilar. The hipfire spread is vastly wider. The one point in which it could potentially be considered better is that it has a more balanced shield/armour affinity at 125/90 compared to 135/80. Again, I donGÇÖt think this should be so. Rather than having the weapon simply be inferior, redefine its role. It can be shorter ranged than the SCR, absolutely! It may well be so that it should have a lower RoF too. However, by trading that off it should gain something else. Perhaps it should be able to outdamage the SCR, for instance, by gaining a powerful single shot hit at its lower range and RoF. There is another design flaw in the 1.8 rifle class that is immediately apparent on looking at the new damage chart. The State Kaalakiota Specialist Rail Rifle has more damage than the prototype Kaalakiota Rail Rifle, at 1.7 damage more. None of the other specialist weapons have this feature. Rifle Design Flaws + Discrepancies Summary/TL;DR All the plasma rifle variants are poor weapons and have no role GÇô especially in the case of the breach variant, which is by far the weakest rifle and would still be the weakest even if it carried its pre-nerf stats into 1.8. The specialist RR mysteriously has more damage than the prototype one. No other specialist weapon exhibits this property. [P2] Sidearm comparisons LetGÇÖs go back to our DPS comparisons for the sidearms. ItGÇÖs worth noting as well that the ion pistol and scrambler pistol are both semi-automatic, meaning that they will very rarely attain their full DPS value, especially in the case of the ion pistol where the restrictively low RoF means that taps will not always translate to shots, a phenomenon known as oversampling. The RoF of the ion pistol is 375 RPM. At 50 damage a shot, with a maxed fire rate this translates to 312.5 DPS. It does, however, have a charge shot mechanic which allows you to charge up a shot for 1.45 seconds for 350 damage. This gives an effective engagement DPS of 241, but can be used for alpha purposes. The RoF of the magsec SMG is 666 RPM. At 35 damage a shot, this translates to 388 DPS. The RoF of scrambler pistol is 400 RPM. At 80 damage a shot, this translates to 533 DPS. Notably, it also has a 450% damage bonus on headshots. The RoF of the submachine gun is 1000 RPM. At 21 damage a shot this translates to 350 DPS. The RoF of the bolt pistol is 150 RPM. At 135 damage a shot, this translates to 337.5 DPS. From this damage assessment we can see that the ion pistol is the weakest sidearm in terms of damage output when not considering the charge time on the bolt pistol and magsec SMGs. With those, it slightly outperforms them GÇô but only slightly. A note on charge delay GÇô it is easily mitigated by pre-charging as the opponent comes around a corner, or constantly tapping the trigger as you move around ensuring you are charged up and ready to go at any time. This does not entirely discount the charge time GÇô it is a hindrance, but it is not a significant one. The charge shot mechanic of the ion pistol is not notable for any practical application. Upon firing a charge shot, the weapon will immediately overheat GÇô rendering follow-up shots useless. The alpha damage is not high enough to kill many opponents, so using the charge shot means you will be helpless. Additionally, using the charge shot as a follow-up to normal shots does not work because the charge time is too long and you would be better served by using normal shots. Now. Consider the sustained damage capability of each of these sidearms. The ion pistol has 12 shots in a clip before needing to reload. This gives 600 damage per clip. There is also possibly an overheat mechanic, though this is only known for the charge shot. The magsec SMG has 54 shots in a clip before needing to reload. This gives 1890 damage per clip. The SMG has 80 rounds per clip for 1760 damage per clip. The scrambler pistol has 11 rounds per clip for approximately 880 damage per clip, without headshots. The bolt pistol has 6 rounds per clip for 810 damage per clip. The ion pistol is thoroughly outperformed by the other weapons in sustained damage output. The other weapons in its class give up to triple the damage per clip, with the exception of the bolt pistol, which is not much better. This is more of a handicap than it appears as well GÇô many opponents have more than 600 EHP, meaning a reload is absolutely necessary for the ion pistol (and potentially the bolt pistol) where it wouldnGÇÖt be for the other sidearms. The pistols generally have lower damage per clip than the SMGs, but the ion pistol pistol still has the lowest in class there as well. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10498	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:11:00 - [3] - Quote ThatGÇÖs closer, and the shield extender fit frame still wins out, but itGÇÖs so close we might as well consider it equal. Of course, these numbers will vary slightly (and a multi-damage modded Gallogi with 5 plates will beat out one with 2 damage mods, 1 extender and 5 plates, but only marginally GÇô and thatGÇÖs more symptomatic of the armoured Gallogi) but the point is the same. Shield extenders and complex damage modifiers are currently fairly well balanced. I would highlight the real problem with damage mod stacking as the ability to reach a point where you can gank an opponent before they can really react. ThatGÇÖs part of a low TTK. After a base damage nerf, shield extenders become even more effective in comparison. Coupled with a nerf as massive as halving the efficacy, and there is very little reason to use damage mods rather than extenders except on very specific fits. [P4] Proficiency changes Going hand in hand with the damage mod changes are the proficiency changes, in order to reduce TTK. Instead of a flat 3% per level damage bonus, itGÇÖs now a 3% per level bonus to the natural affinity of this weapon. This accentuates the natural strengths of weaponry nicely, although it possibly devalues the SP-expensive proficiency skill heavily. The problem arises when considering what will actually happen with this. A weapon with good proficiency will shred its naturally affinity very, very well. The other tank type will be like hitting a brick wall. What does this encourage? Dual tanking. With the damage mod changes, itGÇÖs much more efficient to stack HP over damage mods Would you prefer 140 HP or 10% more damage? Unless youGÇÖre a heavy or sniper, the answer is very likely to be the former. This devalues the concept of having damage types completely. ItGÇÖs not a case of carefully picking targets because your weapon is more efficient against them - itGÇÖs a case of every target being able to harden up against both damage affinities. In the case of some weapons, it also has a potentially devastating effect. For the laser rifle, scrambler rifle, and scrambler pistol shields will be utterly destroyed - 135% damage is huge. But then thereGÇÖs 80% damage to armour, and no easy way to increase that. Especially with the large armour HP pools happening at the moment, this will have a devastating impact on the weapon usage. Of course, a sidearm geared towards a different damage type could be used but that then requires a solid sidearm, which is a significant disadvantage over weapons such as the combat rifle which will struggle with neither shields nor armour. Switching takes valuable time, which can lead to death even with an increased TTK. As a result, more balanced weapons like the CR are likely to have a much easier time of things with this set of changes. [P5]Overall Effect Analysis + Predictions In the end, what we end up with are a series of changes that promote dual tanking and some weapon tweaks which donGÇÖt make sense. A number of weapons will end up falling by the wayside with these changes, and a number will reign supreme. Weapons with a higher range (possibly with the exception of the SCR, due to the terrible damage profile) will continue to dominate in the 1.8 build. If you have the same damage output and a larger range, all other things remaining equal, the longer ranged weapon will become more prevalent because it is simply better. Damage mods have become ineffective while dual tanking has essentially been buffed. As a result of this, dual tanking is very likely to become the dominant fitting style in 1.8. The proficiency changes make it very desirable to have both types of tank and the damage mod changes make it undesirable to use anything else. The damage mod changes also have the side effect of nerfing AV further. ItGÇÖs not all bad, though. In a remarkably intelligent fashion CCP appear to have pre-empted grenade spam by reducing grenade counts across the board. Grenade spam would likely have become a very powerful tactic again with the TTK increase not affecting them, but this change could help prevent that. But there are problems. There are a lot of problems. And there has been no time to give feedback on said problems. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10498	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:18:00 - [4] - Quote Aisha Ctarl wrote: Mhhm, yes, I see... This will shortly become the most +1'd post in the thread, I'm sure. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10504	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:24:00 - [5] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Lol no life nerd In all seriousness though these changes are largely going to damage the game and have the opposite effect that those that asked for them intended IE longer TTK not increasing build diversity as they hoped but rather homogenize the builds we see on the field Thats not even touching on other aspects of game play such as ambush tactics now being severely weakened since now the enemy has ample time to run off and heal up and pushing objectives being a boring battle of attrition since again people will have ample time to take cover and heal up But hey, tanks are being left alone so some players will be happy, good job CCP This is pretty much it. Let it be known that I am not concise and that this can function as a TL;DR with less maths. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10507	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:32:00 - [6] - Quote ads alt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: -snip- How does the ARR have less dps than the rr? The assault weapons are pointless lol Why on earth would you quote all that for one line? Really? You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10507	Posted - 2014.03.06 20:34:00 - [7] - Quote Asha Starwind wrote: Sgt kirk and Arkena are the same person. Would've of never thought. I am the lord of the forums. I am also Cat Merc. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10514	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:01:00 - [8] - Quote Yagihige wrote: Hmm... How about if we'd split damage mods and thus create a split? What i mean is, instead of having just damage mods, we could have shield damage mods and armor damage mods. You'd have a few combinations you could do with these. You could either opt to increase the damage your weapon does to its natural affinity or you could balance your weapon's damage to try and mitigate the lesser damage your weapon does naturally to the opposite affinity. One type of damage mod would go on high slots and the other on low slots. A decent enough idea, but it simply wouldn't work with 5% modifiers. At 10%, it might actually be quite interesting. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10515	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:06:00 - [9] - Quote Beck Weathers wrote: Why flaylock WHY!? But at least when i skill into the Ion pistol and know it sucks i will still be able to depend on it for getting a kill unlike the fail-lock. oh and dat complex damage mod, died before its time. Sad fact - the flaylock will outDPS the breach assault rifle... on splash damage. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10515	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:13:00 - [10] - Quote Heimdallr69 wrote: Soo the combat rifle will be good? I don't mean to question your math cuz mine is terrible but it's nearly 1.5x the other rifles? That's insane. Maybe. That's with the burst fire mode, though. It's a paper statistic that assumes you're maxing out the fire rate (which isn't impossible, but it's a pain nonetheless). It's still going to be a solid weapon with the proficiency changes though. The lessened disadvantage against shields will help in an era of dual tanking. Beck Weathers wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Beck Weathers wrote: Why flaylock WHY!? But at least when i skill into the Ion pistol and know it sucks i will still be able to depend on it for getting a kill unlike the fail-lock. oh and dat complex damage mod, died before its time. Sad fact - the flaylock will outDPS the breach assault rifle... on splash damage. is that incorperating the flaylocks reload time because it has to relaod quite often before the BAR has to No. It's a paper statistic that doesn't mean much. The BAR is useless. The flaylock is useless. Really, that's all we need to know at this point. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10523	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:20:00 - [11] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Going to include possible tech 2 suit users? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean a TTK example with assaults rather than medframes, or something else? If that's what you meant, then it doesn't make much of a difference. I'm happy to do more calculations if you'd like them, but I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking for. Deviant Alt wrote: Why are you using outdated information? Or why are you comparing near proto magsec numbers to std versions of others sidearms? In case you didn't know it got nerfed, none of the magsec variants have 35 damage std 32 adv 33.6 pro 35.2 Corrected for the two parts where this was mistakenly using old data. My apologies, thanks for pointing that out! The majority of it was using correct data, though, and the conclusions remain the same. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10523	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:25:00 - [12] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Going to include possible tech 2 suit users? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean a TTK example with assaults rather than medframes, or something else? If that's what you meant, then it doesn't make much of a difference. I'm happy to do more calculations if you'd like them, but I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're asking for. I mean the assault minmatar gets a magazine bonus the amarr gets a heat bonus; I would say the most immeasurable results would be the plasma weapon handling with the gal assault though. I don't think any of the bonuses are going to change what I looked at here significantly. Mostly it wasn't looking at sustained damage, and three of those bonuses relate to that and the Gallassault bonus doesn't appear to be hugely useful. Overheating has a huge effect on the SCR, but in terms of TTK it should still be capable of dispatching opponents before overheating with the exception of heavies and some brick tankers. CR clip size is large enough to kill most targets in a single clip, though again heavies will be an exception. RR reload speed... is a terrible bonus. Plasma rifle dispersion isn't bad, but it doesn't really appear to have a serious effect on TTK and it's something that as you rightly pointed out can't be measured or calculated very easily. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10553	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:51:00 - [13] - Quote Ansiiis The Trustworthy wrote: Ansiiis The Engineer wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Asha Starwind wrote: Sgt kirk and Arkena are the same person. Would've of never thought. I am the lord of the forums. I am also Cat Merc. Lies! yes, yes. But on a serious note - I read it all and I didn't find a spot to disagree except where you mentioned that shield extenders are fairly balanced to damage mods. I did understand that you emphasized that people would go for dual tanking but still - damage mods should not have touched. Yeah, what I meant is that they're balanced against shield extenders RIGHT NOW. It's okay at the moment. Those examples were meant to show that it was fine at the moment. After a damage mod nerf, dual tanking is the only way to go and I see that as a bad thing. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10558	Posted - 2014.03.06 21:58:00 - [14] - Quote Zahle Undt wrote: See I like your threadnaughts filled with maths more than sarcasm I can't pick out in text. If you are still itching to do the hardcore analysis I would like to see the HMG thrown into the mix and I would love for someone to be able to quantify how much TTK will be effected by frame type. I have the gut feeling that TTK will increase by frame IE light frames will see smallest increase, followed by medium, and then heavy frame. However, I suspect that instead of seeing a similar increase when one goes from light to heavy we would see that the increase in TTK from medium to heavy might be double the increase we see from light to medium, but I am not math savvy enough to pull off those calculations. I was planning on doing the HMG but I was concerned that the thread would devolve into a heavies vs non-heavies thread quickly, as the conclusion I would have drawn is that untouched it's easily going to be a dominant weapon in 1.8. As it happens, in terms of TTK jump between frames: Light --> Medium is not a very large jump, except with heavily tanked logis. Medium --> Heavy is a much larger jump after 1.8, especially because of the resistance bonuses. Don't discount the TTK changes on the light frames just because they're light. Tanking modules have the same efficacy on any frame - I believe you're a heavy, and you may have noticed this if you've ever tried to put on shield extenders. Shield extenders feel fairly low power compared to heavy HP pools. The same effect can be seen with light frames, but in reverse - they benefit massively from individual HP modules. I'll have a bit more of a look at heavies later. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10562	Posted - 2014.03.06 22:33:00 - [15] - Quote darkiller240 wrote: Combat rifle has recoil Burst plasma rifle does not there balance Except the combat recoil is completely laughable and the burst plasma rifle still has it. The only reason you're not noticing it on the plasma variant is because the RoF is so slow in comparison. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10612	Posted - 2014.03.07 07:20:00 - [16] - Quote Dagger-Two wrote: Plasma rifle doing the highest overall damage of the full-auto weapons, with close to zero falloff range. Also would be nice to see : RR get a bit of a rate-of-fire decrease on both variants in exchange for a moderately more optimal and falloff range Scrambler rifles get a little more optimal range, with a little less maximum range Burst combat rifle get a slight increase in time between bursts as well as a small optimal range reduction for both variants, in exchange for a large increase in falloff distance for both variants. Just my opinions And what solid opinions they are. I agree with pretty much all of this. Something I'm very keen on is role definition of weapons - so every weapon has their place where they're excellent, and a place where they're definitely outperformed by other things. The current style of homogeneity with the odd range tweak isn't working very well. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10630	Posted - 2014.03.07 11:00:00 - [17] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I read somewhere, and no I don't remember where or I'd link it, that proficiency would be boosted from 3% to 5%. I don't know where I got that, but I remember reading it somewhere here. I doubt that in the extreme, and I've seen nothing to that effect. Also, it wouldn't make much of a difference in the end. Dual tanking would still be the name of the game. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10657	Posted - 2014.03.07 18:30:00 - [18] - Quote ZiwZih wrote: <3 <3 you too. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10725	Posted - 2014.03.08 15:25:00 - [19] - Quote Varoth Drac wrote: Regarding the AR, there are a couple of points people are missing. Comparing the AR to the ACR: Both the ACR's range advantage and fitting advantage are minor, however the ACR has a significantly smaller magazine when you consider rate of fire. This is going to be a lot more of a problem for the ACR with the upcoming increased TTK. It also has the advantage that the damage profile is the best in the game. An ACR can also potentially reach an 85 round clip with the correct bonuses. Quote: Comparing the AR to the AScR: The scrambler rifles are significantly harder to fit than ARs. I really feel this is an issue that people overlook on the forums. I have equal skills in AR and scramber rifles, along with max PG/CPU skills, and I always feel a bit insane when i'm stripping tank off my suit to fit a scrambler over an AR. I do it because I love the scrambler rifle but it needs it's power to make it worthwhile. This is correct. I also feel that the ASCR damage profile is going to be terrible, so I don't have much of a problem with it. However, neither of these arguments address the huge differences in range profiles for no difference in DPS - indeed, some of these weapons have more DPS with their longer range. Quote: On another note, there is a tendency to think only about the 4 rifles and forget the other weapons in the game. The rifles are not meant to be massively different from each other. The differences between blaster, laser, projectile and rail weapons are also covered by shotguns, laser rifles, mass drivers and sniper rifles. Sure, that's fine. Again, them being similar isn't a problem. The problem is them being practically identical except some of them have flat-out better stats than others. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10782	Posted - 2014.03.09 09:33:00 - [20] - Quote Patrick57 wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: -snip gizoogle- You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10800	Posted - 2014.03.09 12:57:00 - [21] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: You, sir, are the most proficient and constructive like-farmer this forum, nay, the world, has ever seen. I'm thinking that I'm going to be using my scrambler pistol as my primary weapon in 1.8 with the rifle for some emergency firepower. I was rather generous and gave Sgt Kirk some likes as well. I don't think using an SCP as a sidearm to accompany another laser weapon is a great idea though. It's an excellent weapon, but the proficiency changes are going to hurt people with the same affinity on their weapons. IMO, the Magsec would be a superb sidearm for the SCR. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10828	Posted - 2014.03.09 20:33:00 - [22] - Quote Dagger-Two wrote: Humpity Hump, this thread needs a bump! ...and a blue tag I'm pretty sure blue tags generally come during the week. If they come at all. Given what happened the last time I bothered to write a thread like this, no blue tag is forthcoming. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10841	Posted - 2014.03.09 21:52:00 - [23] - Quote LEHON Xeon wrote: -snip- Excellent post is excellent. I can't +1 you enough. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10892	Posted - 2014.03.11 07:03:00 - [24] - Quote Dreniella wrote: You should make a fansite/blog and write these things there tbh. Why bother when I can farm likes for my glorious like counter instead? You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10926	Posted - 2014.03.11 22:41:00 - [25] - Quote @Rynx Sinfar: Decent post noted. Let's talk about some of those points. 3. Due to dual tanking, I see the average shield and armour strength of most suits being quite similar as most people stack HP modules. 4+5. That's pretty much exactly it. The MSMG doesn't directly outperform rifles, it won't be replacing any of them - but it can give a huge amount of flexibility by providing what amounts to only a slightly weaker version of a rifle as a sidearm. As you noted, that lets you run AV weapons, shotguns, etc with much more general versatility. 8. The idea of some suits not being as suited for dual tanking doesn't work here. Damage mods and shield mods directly compete for the same slots and resources - so any suit that can use damage mods and armour plates can dual tank. And most can, really. There aren't really any suits that can't be feasibly dual tanked. 10. Very minor, borderline irrelevant. 11. Of course. It can be quite obvious what will work best all other factors being equal, though, and that's really the point of this - to see what can be predicted from what we have. Generally, if something is better when things are equal, unless there's some unconventional balancing mechanic for it, then that item will simply generally be better. Some of your post seems a little confused. You list 'items that should be considered along with the other arguments' but then list as one of those concerns the ion pistol, without commenting on any actual information missing from the arguments (apart from possibly the cooldown time, which makes no difference). For those initial things you pointed out: Source for sidearm ranges: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136371&find=unread They're based on the standard ranges, as the entire thing is based off STD gear. An analysis of all the tiers would be overly long and pointless, as there's no real difference. So these are correct. I see no discrepancies in the DPS charts. You're quite correct on the SCP skill. That certainly is an oversight on my part, and it'll be tweaked when next I redo this. But I'm slightly baffled by your assertion that this post is 'missing a lot of key information' when really the only thing here is the SCP operations skill, which is a fairly minor edit. Monkey MAC wrote: While I see your point with the damage mods, at the same time. 1) If Damage Mods provide more power than a shield extender then the shield extender becomes obselete 2) This creates the current shield/armour inbalance because Shield Extender are useless against damage mods, while armour is not. 3) By nerfing Damage Mods shields now become relevamt again, a Shield Tanked suit is now NOT at a disadvantage. 4) HOWEVER gallantean suits need reduced CPU, amd Caldari reduced PG to discourage brick tanking these suits. 1 - Sure it does. That's why they should be at a similar power level. 2 - I don't think so. A shield extender is not useless against a damage mod, nor is it useless in comparison to a damage mod. The topic of shield vs armour is a complex one, but it's not exactly this specifically. 3 - Not quite how this works. It's not that a shield tanked suit is no longer at a disadvantage (it was on relatively even footing in the first place in terms of direct comparisons between the two) it's that damage modded suits are now definitely at a disadvantage and you should use a shield extender instead. 4 - No. This would require a comprehensive rebalance of module costs to actually work properly without crippling both suits involved. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10942	Posted - 2014.03.12 07:17:00 - [26] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: You see you provided an example of damage mod v Shield extender, which you is biased AGAINST the shield extender. Lets try a few others. Example 1 You are allowed 1H 1L, you may only go tank with your suits tank type. Armour: 1Plate + 1Dmg Mod Shield: 1Extender + any non tank based mod. Winner: Armour Example 2 You are allowed 1H 1L, you may have any mod you like. Winning Combination: 1plate + 1 Dmg Mod So long as a Damage Mod is mathematically equivalent to a Shield Extender, Shield Tanking suits are at a disadvantage. Why? In an armour suit you can have damage + health, in a shield suit you must choose between on or the other, since currently there is no low slot module that provides a bonus that is mathematically equivalent to an armour plate. That is why this patch you have caldari suit stacking as many plates as everyone else. Armour Plate > Lows Shield Extenders = Damage Mods(Highs) I biased it against the shield extender? Hardly. My example was based purely off of a comparison between fitting a shield mod and fitting a damage mod. Your own example is hilariously bad for these purposes. Why go with only one tank type? Compare fitting 1 shield extender and 1 plate to 1 plate and 1 damage mod. This isn't a shields vs armour debate. This is pointing out that dual tanking is by far the best option come 1.8. TheGoebel wrote: So how long did it take from when you posted your first armor dissertation till actual armor change? I do think this turnaround will be faster, but no sense in not collecting data. EDIT: Maybe we should look between change and meaningful change as well. Why hello there. I remember you. There's pretty much zero chance of any changes happening before 1.8 here. After that, who knows? You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 10965	Posted - 2014.03.13 07:11:00 - [27] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Yes Dual-Tanking will be the best option its always been the best option thats why we have brick-tankers since forever. What I disagree with is your belief that extenders and damage mods should be comparable. They should not. With the reduction of damage mods Shield only tanking is viable again, we now need to focus on ways to stop brick tanking, yet still allow dual tanking. But dual tanking hasn't been better, unless you have a really bad habit of betting ambushed. Damage mods are only mathematically superior after the suit has 720 EHP, because this is the point at which an extra extender provides less than 10% of your EHP. Generally speaking further damage mods aren't really worthwhile based on that logic, but at a certain point (i.e. 720 EHP) you don't really need much more HP and the little extra bit of gank can be far more useful. essentially, if you're trying to max out your suit, don't fit more than one damage mod unless you're a heavy. (I think? Please feel free to judge me harshly if my opinions are incorrect.) That's pretty much it. Also, shield extenders can be worth using over damage mods even on heavies when you count resistance bonuses. Monkey MAC wrote: Yes Dual-Tanking will be the best option its always been the best option thats why we have brick-tankers since forever. What I disagree with is your belief that extenders and damage mods should be comparable. They should not. With the reduction of damage mods Shield only tanking is viable again, we now need to focus on ways to stop brick tanking, yet still allow dual tanking. It is not my belief that they should be comparable. They just simply are. They directly compete for the same slots and resources, and it often comes down to a choice between one and the other. How do you define dual tanking differently from brick tanking? You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 11535	Posted - 2014.03.20 22:02:00 - [28] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: Beautiful work Arkena! It's good to know what weapons to spec into...the second best ones. So, because they're likely to end up the best as the best one gets nerfed? I'm afraid CCP doesn't seem to work in that kind of logical fashion. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 11549	Posted - 2014.03.21 07:06:00 - [29] - Quote Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p wrote: why does the most OP one get the least nerf? (yes ScR, I'm looking at you) The nerf differences are tiny percentages. I don't see anything changing in terms of rifle vs rifle balance. Though your assertion that the SCR is the most OP amuses me. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12199	Posted - 2014.04.09 22:02:00 - [30] - Quote Well, I guess I'll have a look at this a month or so later. In essence, the predictions of this thread were as follows: The Magsec SMG would be the sidearm of choice post-1.8 Due to proficiency changes, laser and explosive weaponry would be hit hard Shield extenders would be preferred over damage mods Plasma rifle variants would be weakest in class CRs would be popular due to the excellent damage profile This patch would not change much in terms of rifle vs rifle balance with the exception of the SCR, affected by proficiency Things that came after this thread: - News of the SCP nerf - Details of cloaking and the playstyle changes brought with that Things that this thread did not adequately cover: - Consequences on dropsuits - A full rifle comparison, RR/CR/AR/SCR As for the predictions, I feel that they were generally correct. Looking at the field is an anecdotal experience, and though I firmly believe that I am seeing more magsecs than pistols and that I'm seeing no breach rifles and few damage mods, it's not really something that I can convince anyone with. So using market data pulled from the API (which is quite nicely displayed at http://dust.thang.dk/market_tryhardinator.php ) we can see that the following: The magsec is the most popular sidearm All forms of laser weaponry are relatively uncommon, with the SCR being the least common rifle and the SCP being the least common sidearm Shield extenders are more common than damage mods No plasma rifle variants occupy a notable market share CRs are very popular Admittedly I completely failed to foresee the scrambler pistol nerf and that has reduced its viability considerably beyond what I predicted, and the effect of suits was not covered adequately. So I'd say this thread was approximately accurate. Not an unmitigated success with predictions of 100% accuracy, but fairly close to the mark. Thoughts? You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 12364	Posted - 2014.04.17 10:47:00 - [31] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: Why do you think the Rail Rifle edges out the Combat Rifle in popularity? Adding up the top tens from the Try-Hardinator: Rail Rifle [and variants]: 22 + 13.3 = 35.3 % Combat Rifle [all variants]: 14.4 + 8.1 + 7.3 = 29.8 % Assault Rifle [all variants]: 9.5 + 6.2 = 15.7 % Probably because of the extra range being useful and because of the comfort factor of having a fully automatic weapon as opposed to a burst one. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake. EUrobro

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.