DUST Search - To Rattati: ARR and CQC

CCP Rattati wrote:

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

Rattati,

You seem to be of a mind to reduce the rail rifle's effectiveness in CQC. Currently I stand against this change. It is not that I think the RR should be good in CQC. However, the CQC RR option, the ARR, is vastly inferior to other rifle options. I will list out some problems I find with it:

1. Ammo capacity is the same for the RR and ARR, meaning far less damage per magazine (2171.4 for proto RR and 1680 for ARR)

2. Range is nearly identical for RR and ARR. RR is 73m, ARR is 71m. Optimal was tested by aiming at an installation with an efficiency reading of 9%, and backing up until efficiency dropped to 8%. The breaking point between these was considered the optimal range for my tests. the ARR also has no zoom nor a scope, meaning taking advantage of this range is far more difficult.

3. DPS is almost exactly the same. 397 for RR, 400 for ARR.

This means that there is almost no situation where the ARR outshines the RR. The faster ROF means that you eat ammo faster, and with the same magazine size as the RR, that means the RR is better in CQC. This is because since the ARR shoots faster, you lose more shots if your not on target than with the RR. The harder hitting slower firing RR gives more time to readjust before too many rounds have missed.

I propose the changes thus. All damage numbers assume proto level.

1. Increase ammo capacity from 42 to 58.

2. Increase damage from 40 to 42. This brings DPS to 420. By comparison, ACR has 436.6 DPS and PR has DPS of 453.2. This is as it should be, the ARR should have lowest DPS of the Assault variants.

- The damage per mag with both of these will be 2436.

3. Decrease range to 55-60m. Whichever makes it the longest ranged Assault variant while still substantially lower than the base RR optimal.

4. Keep charge time the same as it is currently. ie: Increase charge time for the base RR, and keep the ARR where it is now.

With these changes, the ARR now has a niche, and Caldari have a CQC variant that doesn't outperform the other lower range rifles. With this change, I would fully support The changes to the RR you proposed in your thread here.

Constructive criticism is appreciated. I also made a spreadsheet in google docs since Rattati seems to like them, but I am unsure of how to save it to post here. :(

I am looking at this right now


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1988	Posted - 2014.10.24 01:52:00 - [1] - Quote Rattati, You seem to be of a mind to reduce the rail rifle's effectiveness in CQC. Currently I stand against this change. It is not that I think the RR should be good in CQC. However, the CQC RR option, the ARR, is vastly inferior to other rifle options. I will list out some problems I find with it: 1. Ammo capacity is the same for the RR and ARR, meaning far less damage per magazine (2171.4 for proto RR and 1680 for ARR) 2. Range is nearly identical for RR and ARR. RR is 73m, ARR is 71m. Optimal was tested by aiming at an installation with an efficiency reading of 9%, and backing up until efficiency dropped to 8%. The breaking point between these was considered the optimal range for my tests. the ARR also has no zoom nor a scope, meaning taking advantage of this range is far more difficult. 3. DPS is almost exactly the same. 397 for RR, 400 for ARR. This means that there is almost no situation where the ARR outshines the RR. The faster ROF means that you eat ammo faster, and with the same magazine size as the RR, that means the RR is better in CQC. This is because since the ARR shoots faster, you lose more shots if your not on target than with the RR. The harder hitting slower firing RR gives more time to readjust before too many rounds have missed. I propose the changes thus. All damage numbers assume proto level. 1. Increase ammo capacity from 42 to 58. 2. Increase damage from 40 to 42. This brings DPS to 420. By comparison, ACR has 436.6 DPS and PR has DPS of 453.2. This is as it should be, the ARR should have lowest DPS of the Assault variants. - The damage per mag with both of these will be 2436. 3. Decrease range to 55-60m. Whichever makes it the longest ranged Assault variant while still substantially lower than the base RR optimal. 4. Keep charge time the same as it is currently. ie: Increase charge time for the base RR, and keep the ARR where it is now. With these changes, the ARR now has a niche, and Caldari have a CQC variant that doesn't outperform the other lower range rifles. With this change, I would fully support The changes to the RR you proposed in your thread here. Constructive criticism is appreciated. I also made a spreadsheet in google docs since Rattati seems to like them, but I am unsure of how to save it to post here. :( Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1988	Posted - 2014.10.24 01:53:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Rattati, You seem to be of a mind to reduce the rail rifle's effectiveness in CQC. Currently I stand against this change. It is not that I think the RR should be good in CQC. However, the CQC RR option, the ARR, is vastly inferior to other rifle options. I will list out some problems I find with it: 1. Ammo capacity is the same for the RR and ARR, meaning far less damage per magazine (2171.4 for proto RR and 1680 for ARR) 2. Range is nearly identical for RR and ARR. RR is 73m, ARR is 71m. Optimal was tested by aiming at an installation with an efficiency reading of 9%, and backing up until efficiency dropped to 8%. The breaking point between these was considered the optimal range for my tests. the ARR also has no zoom nor a scope, meaning taking advantage of this range is far more difficult. 3. DPS is almost exactly the same. 397 for RR, 400 for ARR. This means that there is almost no situation where the ARR outshines the RR. The faster ROF means that you eat ammo faster, and with the same magazine size as the RR, that means the RR is better in CQC. This is because since the ARR shoots faster, you lose more shots if your not on target than with the RR. The harder hitting slower firing RR gives more time to readjust before too many rounds have missed. I propose the changes thus. All damage numbers assume proto level. 1. Increase ammo capacity from 42 to 58. 2. Increase damage from 40 to 42. This brings DPS to 420. By comparison, ACR has 436.6 DPS and PR has DPS of 453.2. This is as it should be, the ARR should have lowest DPS of the Assault variants. - The damage per mag with both of these will be 2436. 3. Decrease range to 55-60m. Whichever makes it the longest ranged Assault variant while still substantially lower than the base RR optimal. 4. Keep charge time the same as it is currently. ie: Increase charge time for the base RR, and keep the ARR where it is now. With these changes, the ARR now has a niche, and Caldari have a CQC variant that doesn't outperform the other lower range rifles. With this change, I would fully support The changes to the RR you proposed in your thread here. Constructive criticism is appreciated. I also made a spreadsheet in google docs since Rattati seems to like them, but I am unsure of how to save it to post here. :( I am looking at this right now If a spreadsheet would help, I have it made, just unsure how to post it. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1988	Posted - 2014.10.24 01:56:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Constructive criticism is appreciated. I also made a spreadsheet in google docs since Rattati seems to like them, but I am unsure of how to save it to post here. :( It saves automatically, then you have to go to File and Sharing, then in the top right cornere there is a "share with link" option, press that, copy the link and Done. Paste the path here and people can press the link and open it. On it, and will put in the OP. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1988	Posted - 2014.10.24 02:06:00 - [4] - Quote Zindorak wrote: Im for a ARR buff i actually like how it's not overpowered or really good like the RR My idea is for there to be a viable CQC option for Caldari. RR users should have to pick between CQC and long ranage, but having both is indeed OP, I freely admit that. But I don't want RR users to be forced to only have long range as options. The ARR should be the CQC option for us RR users. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1991	Posted - 2014.10.24 02:21:00 - [5] - Quote If possible, could these changes make it into the balance hotfix coming on Tuesday? Completely understand if not, but I would definitely appreciate having that option available at the same time that the base RR changes come out. Otherwise I feel that RR users will be kind of let down that their rifle was nerfed (justifiable, but a nerf nonetheless) without having an option to turn to. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 1991	Posted - 2014.10.24 02:24:00 - [6] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: i hope this doesnt mean that the RR will get nerfed. add the scope or a reflex sight to the ARR and ill be happy. the iron sights on it are prohibitive and dont allow the weapon to make use of its range with any degree of functional accuracy Honestly, I think the increased DPS an cut range would make those iron sights better suited than they are now. Plus, the RR does perform well in CQC. Hell, I've tangoed with sentinels with HMGs using my Calmanndo from inside 15m and won handily. So the nerfs are justified. However, without another roption to turn to for CQC, I fear RR will be UP and people will feel there SP in RR was wasted. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 2004	Posted - 2014.10.24 05:01:00 - [7] - Quote Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: Good work, Alena. Long time RR specialists like Stephan Stahl and I have been advocating for adjustments similar to this for a while. One thing I would clearly add to the discussion...recoil. The proposed recoil increase in the weapon changes currently proposed would seriously impact usage. The RR and ARR already have the highest recoil level of any light weapon and that actually is quite counter intuitive to a weapon that is intended to do well at range. I would recommend also holding off on the increased recoil until the dust settles (seriously no pun) on the charge mechanic adjustment we all see how things function. I do like the idea of a SMG like reflex sight being added to the ARR but that's probably a bridge to far at the moment. I assume Rattati would be adding recoil to the base and not the ARR. A reflex sight would be nice. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 2007	Posted - 2014.10.24 05:35:00 - [8] - Quote Updated OP with results of test on recoil between RR and ARR. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 2008	Posted - 2014.10.24 06:21:00 - [9] - Quote Chief-Shotty wrote: Not sure about boosting the RRA damage.....in the long run it still has a considerably longer range than other rifles...Which means even if its the lowest DPS wise, it still retains that consistent damage while the others would have falloff and consequently be less the RRA at a given distance. Sure the RRs are supposed to be range but not sure how much your willing to boost the CQC ability while still giving it a range advantage. And those rifles also put out more damage even with the proposed damage increase. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 2014	Posted - 2014.10.24 15:08:00 - [10] - Quote NextDark Knight wrote: Remove the reload bonus from the Assault Cal Suit for the rail riffle and I'd probley biomass my toon. The bonus is fine just the way it is.. ...what? Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.

Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound Dark Taboo 2017	Posted - 2014.10.24 20:13:00 - [11] - Quote To Rattati, are you in favor of bringing these changes live, and if so would it be possible to deploy in the balance hotfix? If not then I request the base RR changes be put on hold until they can be deployed together. Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2025	Posted - 2014.10.25 16:31:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Many of these changes will be implemented on Tuesday, with the rest. ARR keeps it's chargeup at old value, Damage increased to 40 and 42, and something else I can't remember, writing this from a hotel room in Bejing. Magazine from 42 to 58? Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2028	Posted - 2014.10.26 02:28:00 - [13] - Quote Out of curiosity Rattati, did you remember/look up the other things you were doing to the ARR? Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2028	Posted - 2014.10.26 19:27:00 - [14] - Quote Rattati... Senpai? Mercs whine about the rail rifle but refuse to shield tank to counter it. But that's none of my business.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2050	Posted - 2014.10.27 22:57:00 - [15] - Quote NextDark Knight wrote: 3,100 hours plus logged here.. Stop messing with the Caldari Assault Bonus it is fine! I rather you look into a kick modifier for Scout, Assault and Commando based on suit size. Where the larger suits get less of a kick then the smaller class suits. Wrong thread, kemosabe. Proof that Rattati/CCP do listen to the playerbase.