|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Ryme Intrinseca
1680
   |
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Snipers - We simply cannot have snipers so far away in the redzone they cannot be touched, while also being immune to countersniping. However, we also want to improve the Improved headshot damage, decreased range, improved damage. We have been studying Domination maps, and some of the farthest redline sniper spots that can camp the Objective to get a good gauge of the situation. There cannot be a risk free way of playing the game, for each role there must be a counter.
My concern with this is that tower snipers will be just as hard to counter as they presently are but will radically increase in power. Since they are high up, they get headshots almost by default. So risk/reward might be even more unbalanced by the suggested change.
Quote:Swarms - efficiency against assault dropships needs to be improved fairly, there are a few ways (increased speed, nerf afterburners, increased lock on timers, probably not lock on range nor damage). We will buff normal dropship ehp to make up for their shortcomings.
Sounds sensible.
Quote:Assault HMG buffed, burst HMG needs a slight tune down
I use the burst all the time but I admit it is a little OP. Maybe the RoF of the burst could decrease a little. Not a lot or it will be back to marginal usefulness. Also, as was discussed in another thread, the assault HMG needs to be renamed or given a different role. For the rifles, assault means shorter range, not longer range.
Quote:Small Rail ROF reduced
God yes! These things are absolutely brutal. A DS can effectively shower infantry with full auto sniper fire from the edge of swarm range with total impunity.
Quote:Damage profiles - Projectiles (Combat Rifles, etc) to -15%, 15%, or -20/+20 from -5%, +10%, plus fixing turret damage profiles to match intended design
I agree the previous profile was an anomaly, but if you just change the damage profile and leave the weapons otherwise unchanged that's an across-the-board 5% nerf on projectile weapons. So you should probably do a compensatory increase in the damage stats for projectile weapons. |
Ryme Intrinseca
1680
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Crashy Mc Boom-bewm wrote:Please dont nerf the ROF on the Scr, the issue is the heat build up over time. Make it so each bullet adds a certain amount of heat so people with modded controlers can fire the same amount of bullets a person with a regular controler can.
Heat build up over time should be changed to a shot-based system, but that does not begin to address the power differential between ScR and other rifles. Compared to the other semi-auto, the Tac AR, the ScR has 235 extra DPS and far longer range - it's not even close to balanced. As far as I can see, a RoF decrease is the best way to bring the DPS in line with other weapons, since it hurts turbo users more than DS3 users. |
Ryme Intrinseca
1680
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Quote:Damage profiles - Projectiles (Combat Rifles, etc) to -15%, 15%, or -20/+20 from -5%, +10%, plus fixing turret damage profiles to match intended design I agree the previous profile was an anomaly, but if you just change the damage profile and leave the weapons otherwise unchanged that's an across-the-board 5% nerf on projectile weapons. So you should probably do a compensatory increase in the damage stats for projectile weapons. Heck to the **** to the no. None of the projectile weapons need a buff, they're all best in class bar none.
I didn't say anything about a buff. |
Ryme Intrinseca
1680
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Rattati, could you give us the average KD of snipers? I think it would be an interesting metric to see. If it's higher than average by a large margin, then you can definitely say that they are safer than others 
Or better yet, average deaths per match for snipers. Pretty sure it will be lower than other infantry... |
Ryme Intrinseca
1682
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
I-Shayz-I wrote:no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Are you guys ******* insane?!! a -20/20 for projectile weaponry would be absolute bullshit. Combat rifles already do enough damage to armor as it is, we don't need them doing SCRAMBLER levels of DPS to our armor. Have you ever used a prof 5 Viziam Scrambler against a caldari sentinel? 700 Shields disappear before you can even blink. Now imagine that happening against an armor tanked suit.
Won't be doing ScR levels of DPS, because ScR DPS is 840, CR DPS is 600. Still, I agree -20/20 is too high, it just doesn't seem logical that a projectile weapon would have the same profile as an explosive. |
Ryme Intrinseca
1682
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 19:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Cat Merc wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Quote:Damage profiles - Projectiles (Combat Rifles, etc) to -15%, 15%, or -20/+20 from -5%, +10%, plus fixing turret damage profiles to match intended design I agree the previous profile was an anomaly, but if you just change the damage profile and leave the weapons otherwise unchanged that's an across-the-board 5% nerf on projectile weapons. So you should probably do a compensatory increase in the damage stats for projectile weapons. Heck to the **** to the no. None of the projectile weapons need a buff, they're all best in class bar none. I didn't say anything about a buff. "So you should probably do a compensatory increase in the damage stats for projectile weapons."
What I am suggesting is that if projectile loses x% damage application due to profile change it should gain x% damage application from stat improvement. Hence the net result is to maintain current performance level, i.e. there is no buff. |
Ryme Intrinseca
1683
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 20:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:
What I am suggesting is that if projectile loses x% damage application due to profile change it should gain x% damage application from stat improvement. Hence the net result is to maintain current performance level, i.e. there is no buff.
It should not be compensated, the stats on it are already amazing. People have been asking for its damage profile to be normalized because it gives it an edge it doesn't need.
Rifle performance is like this:
ScR>RR=ARR=CR=ACR>AScR=AR=BrAR=BuAR=TAR
This is what Rattati has said several times, based on performance data (kills per spawn), furthermore it seems to be the general opinion on the forums. There are 'ScR is OP' threads everywhere, nothing about CR recently.
Maybe the perspective you're coming from is that the ARs are weaker than CRs. No one is denying that, it is assumed in everything I've said. Rattati assumes it as well, in OP he says ARs will be rebalanced which means buffed. But the best way to buff the AR is to BUFF THE AR. If you nerf CR instead, the AR will still be UP, you'll just be dying to RR instead of CR. |
Ryme Intrinseca
1684
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 00:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
If for some reason they make the profile -20/20 I suggest the AUR variant is renamed the 'Killsteal' Boundless Combat Rifle. Also turns accuracy up to 100 versus any red a squadmate has put into half armour  |
Ryme Intrinseca
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
1699
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 15:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
I like what I'm seeing in this thread a lot. Feel the game is going in a good direction under Rattati - am actually buying boosters again, which I thought I'd never do. Amazing what a balance tweak here or there can do. Still I have two main concerns:
1. ADS. Really they are so overwhelming powerful at present. I doubt the mooted swarm changes will make much difference. ADS can hover 200m away and use small rails to pick off infantry with total impunity. How will making swarms faster make any difference whatsoever if the ADS never even enters swarm range? I realize you mention a light rail RoF reduction, but it will still allow risk free dominance over AV simply by outranging it. Swarm range needs to at least match small rail range. That can be achieved either by buffing swarm range, nerfing small rail range, or both. I don't have any SP into swarms and never use them, but the present range differential is a pretty glaring imbalance.
2. Snipers. I have to say, as run and gun infantry, there is nothing more infuriating than getting a 500HP scout suit one-shotted from 400m+ while I'm still in the deployment zone and running to home point, as happened at the start of a game the other day. This must be exactly the sort of thing that makes veterans AFK and new players drop the game in a flash (and it will happen to them much more). However, it seems that snipers are not too happy about the suggestion of reducing range in exchange for increased damage, and would this really be better for the typical FPS player? At least at present most sniper shots are not OHKs on anything except the flimsiest scout, so you usually have the chance to move and find cover. If snipers have shorter range but do more damage, the proportion of hits that are OHKs will increase dramatically, so maybe the 'why do I even bother?' factor would increase for run-and-gunners (especially new players). Meanwhile, snipers themselves may feel aggrieved because they've been forced into a closer range, less snipery role. Thus, while I agree that the current low risk sniper mechanics are far from ideal, maybe we should just accept that at this point any changes are likely to turn either snipers or non-snipers (or both) away from the game. |
Ryme Intrinseca
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
1699
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 15:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
Also, I should add that as this patch should cover most of the outstanding balance issues, it would be great if there could be a longer delay before the next one. To this point most of the changes have helped with balance. But once we have balance, changes for their own sake are a bad thing. Let players enjoy the game finally being in a pretty good place and find new things to do with the tools they've been given. Of course this does not preclude the odd fix where something is obviously broken, but no more systematic changes for a while. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|