|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
107
   |
Posted - 2014.07.05 01:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
I still think that the rail rifle should have an effect similar to the laser rifle's close up reduced damage, as it's suppose to be a long range weapon, but is still ludicrously good at CQC due to it's damage output. |
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 16:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Temias Mercurial wrote:I still think that the rail rifle should have an effect similar to the laser rifle's close up reduced damage, as it's suppose to be a long range weapon, but is still ludicrously good at CQC due to it's damage output. That's exactly what I wrote in my notes not 2 hours ago. Please don't, I always found it to be such a counter-intuitive mechanic on the laser rifle, don't do it to the rail rifle. If changes are needed, I would suggest looking at DPS.
DPS has been changed again and again... and the laser rifle is amazing when used correctly. There are no issues with it. It would encourage new tactics involving this new mechanic for the rail rifle. We could give it a small hipfire spread, or we could give it a ridiculously large spread, but neither really works or changes anything when the rail rifle already does hefty damage. This mechanic actually creates a boundary of appropriate weapons in their ranges. Close Range Combat: Blaster and Projectile. Long Range Combat: Laser and Rail. Currently, the rail rifle is simply too good at... everything, to where it fits in both categories. |
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.05 20:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Temias Mercurial wrote:I still think that the rail rifle should have an effect similar to the laser rifle's close up reduced damage, as it's suppose to be a long range weapon, but is still ludicrously good at CQC due to it's damage output. That's exactly what I wrote in my notes not 2 hours ago. why does everyone compare the rail rifle to the laser rifle? the laser rifle is a support weapon. the rail rifle is a primary weapon. the sniper rifle is a support weapon. its long range. if i ran around with a tactical sniper rifle and started popping dudes under 100m would people cry and ask that its bullets magically do less damage at closer ranges? someone explain to me how a chunk of solid matter fire with with as much kinetic energy and velocity as needed to reach the range as the rail rifle, wouldnt punch straight through anyone at close range. tell me how, a bullet does less damage close up than it does at range? can anyone sure me a weapon, any weapon at all that fires a projectile of any sort that does less damage up close and more damage at range? we're talking about a bullet gaining kinetic energy while in flight lol EDIT: making the RR less effective up close remove the only primary weapon the caldari have from general use. what other light weapon would we have for use at under 50m? the amarr have the Scr. you guys plan on giving us some other weapon? buffing the magsec? what? if you want to make the RR less effective at closer ranges, then i should be hearing some ideas about making it even more effective at longer ranges. 100m optimal range? 120, 130 effective range? do we want to go there? 2nd EDIT: flip the RR range profile. effective range 0-25m optimal range 26-100m and decrease the charge up time on the magsec to .25 and .20 for the bolt pistol
As someone who has Proto Amarr Assault and Viziam Laser Rifle... the laser is not a support weapon. I melt heavies with the damn thing  . The reason why people compare the two weapons is because they have the greatest range of rifles (other than the sniper rifle, which is not a combat weapon). The Laser is balanced as it has to deal damage over time, and wastes ammunition when doing so, and has a hefty amount of feadback damage when it overheats. The rail rifle doesn't have a penalty for using it when it does such stupendous damage at any range.
To explain why the rail rifle does more damage over range than up close: As the projectile travels a greater distance, it gains more kinetic force and velocity that is not achieved when first fired (for whatever reason scientifically); however, it does eventually lose force over a certain distance (the effective to absolute range). |
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 16:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
DeathwindRising wrote:Temias Mercurial wrote:DeathwindRising wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Temias Mercurial wrote:I still think that the rail rifle should have an effect similar to the laser rifle's close up reduced damage, as it's suppose to be a long range weapon, but is still ludicrously good at CQC due to it's damage output. That's exactly what I wrote in my notes not 2 hours ago. why does everyone compare the rail rifle to the laser rifle? the laser rifle is a support weapon. the rail rifle is a primary weapon. the sniper rifle is a support weapon. its long range. if i ran around with a tactical sniper rifle and started popping dudes under 100m would people cry and ask that its bullets magically do less damage at closer ranges? someone explain to me how a chunk of solid matter fire with with as much kinetic energy and velocity as needed to reach the range as the rail rifle, wouldnt punch straight through anyone at close range. tell me how, a bullet does less damage close up than it does at range? can anyone sure me a weapon, any weapon at all that fires a projectile of any sort that does less damage up close and more damage at range? we're talking about a bullet gaining kinetic energy while in flight lol EDIT: making the RR less effective up close remove the only primary weapon the caldari have from general use. what other light weapon would we have for use at under 50m? the amarr have the Scr. you guys plan on giving us some other weapon? buffing the magsec? what? if you want to make the RR less effective at closer ranges, then i should be hearing some ideas about making it even more effective at longer ranges. 100m optimal range? 120, 130 effective range? do we want to go there? 2nd EDIT: flip the RR range profile. effective range 0-25m optimal range 26-100m and decrease the charge up time on the magsec to .25 and .20 for the bolt pistol As someone who has Proto Amarr Assault and Viziam Laser Rifle... the laser is not a support weapon. I melt heavies with the damn thing . The reason why people compare the two weapons is because they have the greatest range of rifles (other than the sniper rifle, which is not a combat weapon). The Laser is balanced as it has to deal damage over time, and wastes ammunition when doing so, and has a hefty amount of feadback damage when it overheats. The rail rifle doesn't have a penalty for using it when it does such stupendous damage at any range. To explain why the rail rifle does more damage over range than up close: As the projectile travels a greater distance, it gains more kinetic force and velocity that is not achieved when first fired (for whatever reason scientifically); however, it does eventually lose force over a certain distance (the effective to absolute range). not possible. projectiles start losing kinetic energy the moment theyre fired. friction against the air cause the projectile to lose kinetic energy of time and distance. gravity would cause an increase in kinetic energy, but only up to a certain point where again the air would keep it from gaining anymore kinetic energy. even if you fire the weapon in the space where theres a vacuum, you wouldnt gain anymore more kinetic energy than when you first fire the weapon. without the air theres no friction and so it would maintain its kinetic energy until it collided with something. scientifically its impossible that a weapon gain kinetic energy unless some outside force is applied, such as gravity.
Thanks for the reply  , but the rail gun projectile is not really physical, it's a electromagnetic round fired through a series of rails on the rifle (hence the name). Is there anything that could affect the increase of velocity and/or kinetic damage over a set distance? Maybe a magnetic attraction to dropsuits? Let's say that the projectile is already traveling at a great speed, so up close the magnetic attraction has no additive to damage, but at a distance, if accurate, can potentially increase damage output.
Thoughts?
|
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
RISE of LEGION
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 06:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Temias Mercurial wrote:Thanks for the reply , but the rail gun projectile is not really physical, it's a electromagnetic round fired through a series of rails on the rifle (hence the name). Is there anything that could affect the increase of velocity and/or kinetic damage over a set distance? Maybe a magnetic attraction to dropsuits? Let's say that the projectile is already traveling at a great speed, so up close the magnetic attraction has no additive to damage, but at a distance, if accurate, can potentially increase damage output. Thoughts? The round itself isn't electromagnetic. Basically a rail weapon uses electromagnets to impel a ferrous metal penetrator (usually something that looks like a small dart or perhaps pellet) at hyper velocities. Basic physics...you can't gain speed and or kinetic force without continued propulsion. I've done a little bit of work with the applied sciences facet of rail weapons in my day job a while back.
Yes, but do we really know for certain that the projectile is indeed a solid object when the technology spans 20 thousand years into the future, and in a different galaxy that potentially has different elements and properties? Although rail guns are based of our current technology and concept, it could be vastly different in the future. Hypothetically, our known physics can not apply to this technology. We have clones that transfer their conscience into another body upon death... practical immortality. Everything of which we know and understand could be completely invalid in the concept of this universe, or is vastly shadowed by how little our knowledge is in comparison. For all we know, the 'projectile' could indeed gain velocity and kinetic force from unknown properties far beyond our current understanding.
On another note, what if the projectile had a second fire or function that goes off after a set distance or time to achieve maximum results? Setting it off too early could result in damaging the firing mechanism, rifle, and user. |
|
|
| |
|