DUST Search - Why Scrambler rifles and Rail rifles are actually OP

All Channels

General Discussions

Why Scrambler rifles and Rail rifles are actually OP

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1172	Posted - 2014.08.31 20:27:00 - [1] - Quote Next time you use one, check the weapon efficiency at CQC, even tho they are supposed to be long range rifles, they still have 90% in close combat. Where does that leave AR and CR users? Their weapons are useless outside of short and medium yet SCR and RR's maintain at least 90% of damage OUTSIDE of their intended range. It's not the damage or RPM. It's the weapon Efficiency. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.08.31 20:45:00 - [2] - Quote bump cough If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Atiim 11758	Posted - 2014.08.31 20:50:00 - [3] - Quote How dare you suggest that my 75m+ weapon shouldn't be like a Shotgun in CQC? It's already the most balanced rifle in the game! DUST 514's 1st Matari Commando -HAND
Rusty Shallows Caldari State 2063	Posted - 2014.08.31 20:50:00 - [4] - Quote That can be one tricky topic to figure out. HMGs & Shotguns often go through those debates. I still have nightmares of the days a shotgun were able to out DPS my SMG at a farther range. That and actually seeing "Militia Shotgun Blueprint" appear in the kill feed. Other than using range verses DPS how else could efficiency on direct fire weapons be controlled? The Laser Rifle has a lower damage at close range but if you try that with a more conventional weapon it is going to be weird. I have a lot of respect for Classic Logis. New Eden could use more Healers. Forums > Game: Biggest understatement ever
Shiyou Hidiyoshi Ancient Exiles. 903	Posted - 2014.08.31 20:55:00 - [5] - Quote I don't use the SCR but I have an ADV RR and I'll tell you all right now, it IS too good at CQC for something that is suppose to be a long range weapon. I'm more worried about RRs at CQC than ARs or CRs and when it comes to SCRs... I'm a shield user so I have the disadvantage in every scenario lol. Dang dem armor users :o shield4lyfe
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.08.31 20:59:00 - [6] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: That can be one tricky topic to figure out. HMGs & Shotguns often go through those debates. I still have nightmares of the days a shotgun were able to out DPS my SMG at a farther range. That and actually seeing "Militia Shotgun Blueprint" appear in the kill feed. Other than using range verses DPS how else could efficiency on direct fire weapons be controlled? The Laser Rifle has a lower damage at close range but if you try that with a more conventional weapon it is going to be weird. Not a case of figuring out so much, just IT NEEDS fixing. It is game breaking since they already do the highest damage but coupled with zero loss in efficiency regardless of range means there IS NO REASON to use any other gun, other than AV If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Mejt0 The Only Survivor. 436	Posted - 2014.08.31 22:40:00 - [7] - Quote Ow really? Take your RR and try to kill me/someone who will run/strafe around You faster than You can turn around. RR is crapy in CQC, and it will get CQC cap nerf in delta. So dont worry. Caldari Loyalist Markiplier fan. Got 6815 WP only on wrecking tanks with Ion Cannon.
Thumb Green Raymond James Corp 1369	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:35:00 - [8] - Quote Mejt0 wrote: Ow really? Take your RR and try to kill me/someone who will run/strafe around You faster than You can turn around. RR is crapy in CQC, and it will get CQC cap nerf in delta. So dont worry. It works well enough in CQC when I use it. Of course I try to stay out of CQC when using it because it's harder to take on groups with but usually the CR is the only rifle with an upper hand in CQC against the RR. Otherwise it works well going against 1 or 2 people. At the RJC we don't kick ass, we kick dick and we kick it hard. Fix supply depots
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 2216	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:38:00 - [9] - Quote Umm...the RR has 90% efficacy cause its a rail weapon (-10% to shields) ScR was probably a glitch "Minmitar Scout" and "Masochist" are synonyms. FA's Shotgunning T-Dome Champ Give the Minja active dampening!--By Bor
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13137	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:42:00 - [10] - Quote This whole tread is four kinds of stupid. "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon

Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:45:00 - [11] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: Umm...the RR has 90% efficacy cause its a rail weapon (-10% to shields) ScR was probably a glitch Would be fine, if it wasn't 90% at close range...shotgun range close. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:47:00 - [12] - Quote True Adamance wrote: This whole tread is four kinds of stupid. On what grounds? If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13137	Posted - 2014.08.31 23:54:00 - [13] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: This whole tread is four kinds of stupid. On what grounds? Tries to argue that a weapon that can project superheated channels of plasma based energy projectiles can do it and should retain heat/impact/ destructive power out to 50+ M but cannot do that at short range? Tries then to argue that weapons designed for sustained DPS at short range (which for all intents and purposes, especially the AR, really should have a more workable DPS) which are forgiving to those who miss and do not over heat are less effective than a single shot, accuracy based weapon which does over heat and cannot take advantage of its best trait (charged shot) in CQC (as you cannot sprint with a change, nor should you). "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.09.01 00:41:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: This whole tread is four kinds of stupid. On what grounds? Tries to argue that a weapon that can project superheated channels of plasma based energy projectiles can do it and should retain heat/impact/ destructive power out to 50+ M but cannot do that at short range? Tries then to argue that weapons designed for sustained DPS at short range (which for all intents and purposes, especially the AR, really should have a more workable DPS) which are forgiving to those who miss and do not over heat are less effective than a single shot, accuracy based weapon which does over heat and cannot take advantage of its best trait (charged shot) in CQC (as you cannot sprint with a change, nor should you). I am just concerned that for some reason the nerf crusade is on for a weapon that has essentially been the same for months now.....in the same way it was when it was nerfed the first time and during that long period of where no complaints were leveled at it flew under the radar and was being used by dedicated players and was only seen infrequently. Don't get me wrong I have no stake in this any more as I do no play Dust...... but hell that screams all kinds of ****** up to me. Not asking for a nerf. I'm asking for Weapon Efficiency to work as intended. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13141	Posted - 2014.09.01 00:43:00 - [15] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: This whole tread is four kinds of stupid. On what grounds? Tries to argue that a weapon that can project superheated channels of plasma based energy projectiles can do it and should retain heat/impact/ destructive power out to 50+ M but cannot do that at short range? Tries then to argue that weapons designed for sustained DPS at short range (which for all intents and purposes, especially the AR, really should have a more workable DPS) which are forgiving to those who miss and do not over heat are less effective than a single shot, accuracy based weapon which does over heat and cannot take advantage of its best trait (charged shot) in CQC (as you cannot sprint with a change, nor should you). I am just concerned that for some reason the nerf crusade is on for a weapon that has essentially been the same for months now.....in the same way it was when it was nerfed the first time and during that long period of where no complaints were leveled at it flew under the radar and was being used by dedicated players and was only seen infrequently. Don't get me wrong I have no stake in this any more as I do no play Dust...... but hell that screams all kinds of ****** up to me. Not asking for a nerf. I'm asking for Weapon Efficiency to work as intended. Well then there is no reason the efficiency at point blank range should not be 100% unmodified. "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:06:00 - [16] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: This whole tread is four kinds of stupid. On what grounds? Tries to argue that a weapon that can project superheated channels of plasma based energy projectiles can do it and should retain heat/impact/ destructive power out to 50+ M but cannot do that at short range? Tries then to argue that weapons designed for sustained DPS at short range (which for all intents and purposes, especially the AR, really should have a more workable DPS) which are forgiving to those who miss and do not over heat are less effective than a single shot, accuracy based weapon which does over heat and cannot take advantage of its best trait (charged shot) in CQC (as you cannot sprint with a change, nor should you). I am just concerned that for some reason the nerf crusade is on for a weapon that has essentially been the same for months now.....in the same way it was when it was nerfed the first time and during that long period of where no complaints were leveled at it flew under the radar and was being used by dedicated players and was only seen infrequently. Don't get me wrong I have no stake in this any more as I do no play Dust...... but hell that screams all kinds of ****** up to me. Not asking for a nerf. I'm asking for Weapon Efficiency to work as intended. Well then there is no reason the efficiency at point blank range should not be 100% unmodified. Maybe not by logical viewpoints. But in terms of games balance and how they are supposed to work there is a reason. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Zindorak 1.U.P 760	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:18:00 - [17] - Quote Atiim wrote: How dare you suggest that my 75m+ weapon shouldn't be like a Shotgun in CQC? It's already the most balanced rifle in the game! HAHAHAHAHAHHA Pokemon master! CCP undo ScP nerf. It hurt my feering very bad
Michael Arck 5334	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:21:00 - [18] - Quote So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Archistrategos *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain*
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:32:00 - [19] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Your missing the point. Alot of you seem to forget this is a game. So no, your RR SHOULD NOT be just as effective at Close range as it is at it's intended range. It should lose efficiency the closer the target is. The same for the Scrambler rifle. The way how AR's lose efficiency the further away the target is. In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13144	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:33:00 - [20] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: Maybe not by logical viewpoints. But in terms of games balance and how they are supposed to work there is a reason. If you look at our current track record this community has shot itself in the foot more times than not...... I am not concerned with you perceptions of balance. Only what makes sense. "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon

Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:35:00 - [21] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Maybe not by logical viewpoints. But in terms of games balance and how they are supposed to work there is a reason. If you look at our current track record this community has shot itself in the foot more times than not...... I am not concerned with you perceptions of balance. Only what makes sense. And that attitude is why nothing gets fixed If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Michael Arck 5334	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:54:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance got a point you know. Archistrategos *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain*
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1173	Posted - 2014.09.01 01:57:00 - [23] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: True Adamance got a point you know. about the community shooting itself in the foot? you gotta fall first before you can get back up. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Michael Arck 5334	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:00:00 - [24] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Your missing the point. Alot of you seem to forget this is a game. So no, your RR SHOULD NOT be just as effective at Close range as it is at it's intended range. It should lose efficiency the closer the target is. The same for the Scrambler rifle. The way how AR's lose efficiency the further away the target is. In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. Says it just a game and then goes on to preach how it shouldn't be effective in CQC. The problem? YOU'RE NOT LISTENING It's a rail rifle. Do you know what that is? So of course if I know how to use my rifle in CQC, that is not just shooting all over the place like a mad man and controlling my fire, I will wreck you. What you asking for changes how the weapon will work in its optimal range. Time and time again, people like you in this community what to change something in a video game because someone has gotten too good at it. Quote: In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. LOL WTF? Should a 50 cal sniper rifle not blow your head off at close range because it's meant to be a long distance instant kill weapon? No. Smh Archistrategos *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13146	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:01:00 - [25] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Maybe not by logical viewpoints. But in terms of games balance and how they are supposed to work there is a reason. If you look at our current track record this community has shot itself in the foot more times than not...... I am not concerned with you perceptions of balance. Only what makes sense. And that attitude is why nothing gets fixed I tried for the longest time to remain positive and constructive disappointment after disappointment. As a community our imput has only been a salve to the sores we ourselves have created. We ruined HAV, buffed them into omnipotence, then to a lack lustre monotony. We have nerfed weapon after weapon, suit after suit, module after module into uselessness, then back in the name of "balance" a word at this point we could not recognise if we tried. We treated EVE and New Eden with a contempt borne of ignorance..... "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1174	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:12:00 - [26] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Your missing the point. Alot of you seem to forget this is a game. So no, your RR SHOULD NOT be just as effective at Close range as it is at it's intended range. It should lose efficiency the closer the target is. The same for the Scrambler rifle. The way how AR's lose efficiency the further away the target is. In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. Says it just a game and then goes on to preach how it shouldn't be effective in CQC. The problem? YOU'RE NOT LISTENING It's a rail rifle. Do you know what that is? So of course if I know how to use my rifle in CQC, that is not just shooting all over the place like a mad man and controlling my fire, I will wreck you. What you asking for changes how the weapon will work in its optimal range. Time and time again, people like you in this community what to change something in a video game because someone has gotten too good at it. Quote: In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. LOL WTF? Should a 50 cal sniper rifle not blow your head off at close range because it's meant to be a long distance instant kill weapon? No. Smh Your bringing Real life into a game. It doesn't work, Weapon optimal ranges exist for a reason. I bet ALOT if not all the people who use broken weapons ect either knowingly or not think "their good" but the fact is the opposite. If RR and SCR maintain their "100%" efficiency outside of their optimal then other weapons should to. It's not about "real life" this is a game...a gaaaamme with the idea of weapon balance. It's not even a weapon balancing issue, it's a core mechanic glitch or bug. Weapons lose weapon efficiency the further away the target is from their optimal ranges. This does not happen with the RR and SCR. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13147	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:15:00 - [27] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Your missing the point. Alot of you seem to forget this is a game. So no, your RR SHOULD NOT be just as effective at Close range as it is at it's intended range. It should lose efficiency the closer the target is. The same for the Scrambler rifle. The way how AR's lose efficiency the further away the target is. In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. Says it just a game and then goes on to preach how it shouldn't be effective in CQC. The problem? YOU'RE NOT LISTENING It's a rail rifle. Do you know what that is? So of course if I know how to use my rifle in CQC, that is not just shooting all over the place like a mad man and controlling my fire, I will wreck you. What you asking for changes how the weapon will work in its optimal range. Time and time again, people like you in this community what to change something in a video game because someone has gotten too good at it. Quote: In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. LOL WTF? Should a 50 cal sniper rifle not blow your head off at close range because it's meant to be a long distance instant kill weapon? No. Smh Your bringing Real life into a game. It doesn't work, Weapon optimal ranges exist for a reason. I bet ALOT if not all the people who use broken weapons ect either knowingly or not think "their good" but the fact is the opposite. If RR and SCR maintain their "100%" efficiency outside of their optimal then other weapons should to. It's not about "real life" this is a game...a gaaaamme with the idea of weapon balance. It's not even a weapon balancing issue, it's a core mechanic glitch or bug. Weapons lose weapon efficiency the further away the target is from their optimal ranges. This does not happen with the RR and SCR. Currently in New Eden there is no short range optimal values. Everything in terms of optimal is measured as "within X000m" Speed tanking does however allow you to get in under or move faster than a ships guns tracking but does not reduce the weapons damage potential, merely the number of projectiles that hit. "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
Spectre-M The Generals Anime Empire. 771	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:20:00 - [28] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Your missing the point. Alot of you seem to forget this is a game. So no, your RR SHOULD NOT be just as effective at Close range as it is at it's intended range. It should lose efficiency the closer the target is. The same for the Scrambler rifle. The way how AR's lose efficiency the further away the target is. In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. Says it just a game and then goes on to preach how it shouldn't be effective in CQC. The problem? YOU'RE NOT LISTENING It's a rail rifle. Do you know what that is? So of course if I know how to use my rifle in CQC, that is not just shooting all over the place like a mad man and controlling my fire, I will wreck you. What you asking for changes how the weapon will work in its optimal range. Time and time again, people like you in this community what to change something in a video game because someone has gotten too good at it. Quote: In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. LOL WTF? Should a 50 cal sniper rifle not blow your head off at close range because it's meant to be a long distance instant kill weapon? No. Smh Your bringing Real life into a game. It doesn't work, Weapon optimal ranges exist for a reason. I bet ALOT if not all the people who use broken weapons ect either knowingly or not think "their good" but the fact is the opposite. If RR and SCR maintain their "100%" efficiency outside of their optimal then other weapons should to. It's not about "real life" this is a game...a gaaaamme with the idea of weapon balance. It's not even a weapon balancing issue, it's a core mechanic glitch or bug. Weapons lose weapon efficiency the further away the target is from their optimal ranges. This does not happen with the RR and SCR. It also doesn't happen to the SR, CR, FG, SL, PLC or MD. I've never seen the point of pre-optimal build up efficacy. Should every weapon be ineffective before and after it's optimal? Minnmitar in Amarr armor. A Wolf in Sheeps clothing. May the Empress live till she graces my sights.
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1174	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:23:00 - [29] - Quote Spectre-M wrote: It also doesn't happen to the SR, CR, FG, SL, PLC or MD. I've never seen the point of pre-optimal build up efficacy. Should every weapon be ineffective before and after it's optimal? Well FG,SL,PLC and MD shouldn't be affected by "optimal range" due to the nature of the weapons. CR and sniper rifles do lose efficiency from when I used them. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Michael Arck 5336	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:24:00 - [30] - Quote Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Michael Arck wrote: So what I beat you at CQC with my RR. I'm supposed not to because the stats say so? You never considered that I just know how to strafe and keep the reticule on you while my RR blasts at your defenses? That I know how to use my rifle? It can't be that, huh? Just some force of nature should happen and cause my weapon to jam once I'm in a CQC situation because the stats say so, huh? Doesn't make any sense. Your missing the point. Alot of you seem to forget this is a game. So no, your RR SHOULD NOT be just as effective at Close range as it is at it's intended range. It should lose efficiency the closer the target is. The same for the Scrambler rifle. The way how AR's lose efficiency the further away the target is. In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. Says it just a game and then goes on to preach how it shouldn't be effective in CQC. The problem? YOU'RE NOT LISTENING It's a rail rifle. Do you know what that is? So of course if I know how to use my rifle in CQC, that is not just shooting all over the place like a mad man and controlling my fire, I will wreck you. What you asking for changes how the weapon will work in its optimal range. Time and time again, people like you in this community what to change something in a video game because someone has gotten too good at it. Quote: In terms of balance your long range weapon should lose damage the closer you are, just how close range weapons deal less damage from further away. LOL WTF? Should a 50 cal sniper rifle not blow your head off at close range because it's meant to be a long distance instant kill weapon? No. Smh Your bringing Real life into a game. It doesn't work, Weapon optimal ranges exist for a reason. I bet ALOT if not all the people who use broken weapons ect either knowingly or not think "their good" but the fact is the opposite. If RR and SCR maintain their "100%" efficiency outside of their optimal then other weapons should to. It's not about "real life" this is a game...a gaaaamme with the idea of weapon balance. It's not even a weapon balancing issue, it's a core mechanic glitch or bug. Weapons lose weapon efficiency the further away the target is from their optimal ranges. This does not happen with the RR and SCR. Who the hell is talking about real life? I'm talking about video games The sniper scenario I've done in this game. Others have done it to me. I even asked you how would you change it so that the RR is not effective in CQC but still maintains its optimal range stats. It can't be done unless the game cheats you. Man, you're not this stupid. Seriously man. Stop playing with me. You're not this dumb. But this argument is pointless. If you don't hear, "I agree with your Coleman" then you're not comprehending and making excuses to carry out your QQ. So that means, its pointless for me to continue trying to show you reason. Essentially, you want to penalize players who have mastered their weapons. Archistrategos *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain*

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 13148	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:30:00 - [31] - Quote No everyone STOP IT! We are not going to feed the cycle. Breath in....breath out....Wax on....Wax Off @ OP- while I disagree with you, I understand you have a valid concern and are seeking ways to better improve the game you love. Well argued. I have said my piece and will leave. Do however take this up with Rattati... he seems to have a good nose and mind of balancing this sort of thing. "We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 1035	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:31:00 - [32] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: I even asked you how would you change it so that the RR is not effective in CQC but still maintains its optimal range stats. It can't be done unless the game cheats you. increase hip fire dispersion, make dispersion balloon even worse when strafing compared to AR. Dust/Eve transfers
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1175	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:47:00 - [33] - Quote True Adamance wrote: No everyone STOP IT! We are not going to feed the cycle. Breath in....breath out....Wax on....Wax Off @ OP- while I disagree with you, I understand you have a valid concern and are seeking ways to better improve the game you love. Well argued. I have said my piece and will leave. Do however take this up with Rattati... he seems to have a good nose and mind of balancing this sort of thing. Rattati has been on somewhat of a roll...it's almost scary If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1175	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:51:00 - [34] - Quote Sorry, but this is getting out of hand now. Simplified I am pointing out, That in the example of an AR, Aim it at a friendly, look at the weapon efficiency rating it has, now as that friend moves away, keep an eye on the efficiency, It will lower. Now repeat the process with the RR and SCR. Notice an issue? If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Coleman Gray Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 1175	Posted - 2014.09.01 02:53:00 - [35] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: Michael Arck wrote: I even asked you how would you change it so that the RR is not effective in CQC but still maintains its optimal range stats. It can't be done unless the game cheats you. increase hip fire dispersion, make dispersion balloon even worse when strafing compared to AR. Weapon efficiency changing accordingly to range would suffice. If Preparation is half of the battle and knowing is the other half, Then there is no need to fight.
Tectonic Fusion 2101	Posted - 2014.09.01 03:32:00 - [36] - Quote OMG just change the AR damage back to 1.7 stats so you guys won't complain. it should wreck most weapons if you strafe in CQC. (GIF)
Rusty Shallows Caldari State 2064	Posted - 2014.09.01 05:04:00 - [37] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: snip Essentially, you want to penalize players who have mastered their weapons. Wouldn't the same logic then apply for every single nerf request? Does that extend to Dropsuit and/or vehicle nerfs? Do you think the Burst HMG should stay exactly as it is now? Tectonic Fusion wrote: OMG just change the AR damage back to 1.7 stats so you guys won't complain. it should wreck most weapons if you strafe in CQC. Exactly that. +1 potential lulz or actual fix. I have a lot of respect for Classic Logis. New Eden could use more Healers. Forums > Game: Biggest understatement ever
Atiim 11772	Posted - 2014.09.01 06:26:00 - [38] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Coleman Gray wrote: Maybe not by logical viewpoints. But in terms of games balance and how they are supposed to work there is a reason. If you look at our current track record this community has shot itself in the foot more times than not...... I am not concerned with you perceptions of balance. Only what makes sense. Basing things around "what makes sense" from a realistic standpoint can be very, very dangerous. DUST 514's 1st Matari Commando -HAND


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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.