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

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.

Im for a ARR buff i actually like how it's not overpowered or really good like the RR

the points youve made about the ARR are exactly why i dont use it. and ive mentioned this over and over before that the ARR doesnt even follow the same template as the other assault variants.

increased ROF

increased max ammo

increased clip size

decreased damage per shot

decreased range

---

the ARR doesnt follow this. except for completely negligible stats differences of 3 units or less.

what does the data say about its use? i barely see it used ever

I like all these changes, both the reasoning and the fact that the ARR needs a little buff anyway.

thing is, we have been making iterations to rifles since Alpha, and we are not there yet. But there is a long term plan to get to a place where everything makes sense and players pick weapons based on preferred playstyles, not because it's dumb to use anything other than "OP weapon X"

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

I like all these changes, both the reasoning and the fact that the ARR needs a little buff anyway.

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. :(

EDIT: Link to spreadsheet. Much thanks to Rattati for telling me how.

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.

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.

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.

thing is, we have been making iterations to rifles since Alpha, and we are not there yet. But there is a long term plan to get to a place where everything makes sense and players pick weapons based on preferred playstyles, not because it's dumb to use anything other than "OP weapon X"