DUST Search - CCP Rattati, a question on Rifle variations

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

So, by my understanding the general concept was that variations were always supposed to be "emulators" of the other races' mainstay weaponry. That being said, I have to ask:

Once and for all (so we can kill assumptions), are rifle variations -supposed- to be under-powered versions of the thing they're trying to emulate... or are they meant to have their own unique/racial flare and/or viability while emulating the original?

The reason I bring this up is because there is evidence providing for both cases. Obviously, the Breach/Burst/Tac AR are -no where near- their competitors... But on the other hand, the Assault Combat Rifle (at least right now in 1.8) bests the AR in almost every way:

My original thread (long-winded)
Stat comparisons
TTK comparisons

I'm not really trying to say "Yo, CR is OP and PR is UP" that's already been addressed. I'm just asking how variations are supposed to operate so that we can all be on the same page as to how they're supposed to perform and make meaningful suggestions toward their balancing.

I personlly want the racial style weapon to be the best in class, (GAR, SCR, CR, RR) and the other variants to be not as good, pale imitations, so they are utility weapons if you like the "feel" or need to use one situationally. But that's my opinion and as I see it, we are allowed to mold it as we see fit.

I have concerns about the 3 GA variants and think it's flavor at best, at the cost of quite some work to balance. We can cut them all, we can keep one GA variant so all have 2, or we can keep all three and make them viable alternatives to the racial styles they are copies of.

I personally HATE the idea of having the racial original be simply superior than the mimic, I find that inherently an unbalanced way of doing things. Each race has their own strengths and weaknesses: damage profiles, ranges, DPS, and other elements that make them unique or better or worse at particular situations. I would rather use these racial traits to make the mimic variants just as good as the original racial rifles, but simply different because of a different set of strengths and weaknesses.

Imagine if the breach AR (Gallente mick of the rail rifle) was just as good as the rail rifle, but simply different:

Say for example I use a breach AR that is overall just as good as a rail rifle (like it has more DPS to make up for having less range). I might be fighting a corp that uses armor-based dropsuits along with short range weapons; instead of using my breach AR which has bonus damage to shields, a rail rifle would be more practical for the bonus damage to armor, and for being able to hit the enemies outside of their range at the cost of less DPS than the breach AR.

While overall the weapons are just as viable, they each thrive in different situations, and fit different playstyles. One is a long range low DPS breach that does bonus damage to armor, while the other is a close range high DPS breach that does bonus damage to shields. This is what should be strived for in balance.

"As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 1692	Posted - 2014.05.24 15:23:00 - [1] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: So, by my understanding the general concept was that variations were always supposed to be "emulators" of the other races' mainstay weaponry. That being said, I have to ask: Once and for all (so we can kill assumptions), are rifle variations -supposed- to be under-powered versions of the thing they're trying to emulate... or are they meant to have their own unique/racial flare and/or viability while emulating the original? The reason I bring this up is because there is evidence providing for both cases. Obviously, the Breach/Burst/Tac AR are -no where near- their competitors... But on the other hand, the Assault Combat Rifle (at least right now in 1.8) bests the AR in almost every way: My original thread (long-winded) Stat comparisons TTK comparisons I'm not really trying to say "Yo, CR is OP and PR is UP" that's already been addressed. I'm just asking how variations are supposed to operate so that we can all be on the same page as to how they're supposed to perform and make meaningful suggestions toward their balancing. I personlly want the racial style weapon to be the best in class, (GAR, SCR, CR, RR) and the other variants to be not as good, pale imitations, so they are utility weapons if you like the "feel" or need to use one situationally. But that's my opinion and as I see it, we are allowed to mold it as we see fit. I have concerns about the 3 GA variants and think it's flavor at best, at the cost of quite some work to balance. We can cut them all, we can keep one GA variant so all have 2, or we can keep all three and make them viable alternatives to the racial styles they are copies of. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 1735	Posted - 2014.05.25 00:49:00 - [2] - Quote Aero Yassavi wrote: CCP Rattati, remember to keep in mind one of the reasons rifle variants don't get as much use is because they cost a premium over the race's default variant. Especially when you look at prototype, where the variants all cost 77,280 ISK opposed to the defaults costing 47,220 ISK. The 30k ISK premium seems extremely unnecessary and definitely hurts any attempts at data comparison as far as trying to balance via sales data or consumption data. very good point "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 1738	Posted - 2014.05.25 00:59:00 - [3] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: So, by my understanding the general concept was that variations were always supposed to be "emulators" of the other races' mainstay weaponry. That being said, I have to ask: Once and for all (so we can kill assumptions), are rifle variations -supposed- to be under-powered versions of the thing they're trying to emulate... or are they meant to have their own unique/racial flare and/or viability while emulating the original? The reason I bring this up is because there is evidence providing for both cases. Obviously, the Breach/Burst/Tac AR are -no where near- their competitors... But on the other hand, the Assault Combat Rifle (at least right now in 1.8) bests the AR in almost every way: My original thread (long-winded) Stat comparisons TTK comparisons I'm not really trying to say "Yo, CR is OP and PR is UP" that's already been addressed. I'm just asking how variations are supposed to operate so that we can all be on the same page as to how they're supposed to perform and make meaningful suggestions toward their balancing. I personlly want the racial style weapon to be the best in class, (GAR, SCR, CR, RR) and the other variants to be not as good, pale imitations, so they are utility weapons if you like the "feel" or need to use one situationally. But that's my opinion and as I see it, we are allowed to mold it as we see fit. I have concerns about the 3 GA variants and think it's flavor at best, at the cost of quite some work to balance. We can cut them all, we can keep one GA variant so all have 2, or we can keep all three and make them viable alternatives to the racial styles they are copies of. I personally HATE the idea of having the racial original be simply superior than the mimic, I find that inherently an unbalanced way of doing things. Each race has their own strengths and weaknesses: damage profiles, ranges, DPS, and other elements that make them unique or better or worse at particular situations. I would rather use these racial traits to make the mimic variants just as good as the original racial rifles, but simply different because of a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Imagine if the breach AR (Gallente mick of the rail rifle) was just as good as the rail rifle, but simply different: Say for example I use a breach AR that is overall just as good as a rail rifle (like it has more DPS to make up for having less range). I might be fighting a corp that uses armor-based dropsuits along with short range weapons; instead of using my breach AR which has bonus damage to shields, a rail rifle would be more practical for the bonus damage to armor, and for being able to hit the enemies outside of their range at the cost of less DPS than the breach AR. While overall the weapons are just as viable, they each thrive in different situations, and fit different playstyles. One is a long range low DPS breach that does bonus damage to armor, while the other is a close range high DPS breach that does bonus damage to shields. This is what should be strived for in balance. Consider this then. I have personally spent millions of skillpoints upgrading my GAR completely, fititng optimiziations and proficiency. That path is designed to be good for Gallente fully automatic weapons. Now, I can also choose to go pick up the proto full auto CR, but as that tree is meant to make a burst rifle better, it doesnt necessarily make the full auto "better", could be less time between bursts or something along those lines. My GAR should be better in my hands than a ACR in my hands, and certainly better than a ACR that someone who prefers burst rifles but picked up the ACR on the way. Specialization should always be rewarded, that is the crux of why our choices matter, SP and progression. All that said, I just threw that out because I didn't think anyone cared about the variants and was curious to see the reaction. If we balance them, we would certainly try to match the variants with their siblings, RR and GA breach, etc, in relative power but the ranges might be different. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"