DUST Search - Rail rifle hit by excessive overnerf

True Adamance wrote:

John Demonsbane wrote:

NextDark Knight wrote:

So to sum up this things.. CCP Feels that the Rail Rifle is to popular so they are hitting it hard with the nerf bat. Nothing else matters besides that fact.

I'd have to assume you are referring to Rattati's statment to the effect that the fine details are not as important because the rail rifle accounted for 50% of kills.

1 weapon accounting for essentially as many kills as all the others combined implies pretty strongly that it has a substantial advantage over the rest. If you have a more plausible explanation for that, I'd love to hear it.

I feel like that is somewhat of a fallacy. In a competitive genre like FPS players don't necessarily gravitate to a weapon because it has a "significant" advantage they do some because a weapon has "an advantage" that being said that disparity could be anything from game breaking RoF to slight percentage more damage per round or some such nonsense.

Kind of feel like the nerf was heavy handed for watching clips of the game....not to say that it did not need some alterations like this....but perhaps not as great as this initial change.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4291	Posted - 2014.10.28 18:48:00 - [1] - Quote So, ACR IS getting nerfed too, for the people who somehow missed that. CR got toned down a bit in delta also. They might still need some work but let's not pretend we've flaylocked the RR and the other rifles have been left untouched. Hell, the assault scrambler rifle had been hit worse than the RR until recently. One thing needs to be understood: The rail rifle SHOULD be, without question, no arguments, plain as day to everyone within a very short time of using it, the absolute worst weapon in CQC. Terrible to the point you would not consider it to be a smart decision to enter a builidng with it as your primary option. If that is not the case, then it's basically de facto OP because it outclasses everything at range with the possible exception of a skilled LR user in the narrow range of 90-105m. This has never been debatable, and so neither should it's usefulness in CQC (or lack thereof) have been in question. The argument made about swapping at supply depots in order to hack boils down to: "Hey, why can't I use this one weapon very effectively in every situation against every other weapon?" I'm sorry, but that's simply not the statement of someone objectively looking at weapon balance. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4293	Posted - 2014.10.28 19:38:00 - [2] - Quote And neither should the best ranged weapon be viable in CQC. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4331	Posted - 2014.10.29 22:35:00 - [3] - Quote Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: John, I respect your opinion a lot....however the victory conditions of the game are for the most part dictated by closing to an objective, by definition bringing most of the fighting into CQC range. Makes no sense to put one racial line at such a clear disadvantage. This really boils down to poor weapon design for then RR and ARR and there nerf/buffs associated are only symptoms of the problem. Thank you. What you are saying is100% true. But then we are needing to have a different and much larger-reaching discussion, right? Sticking to the subject of the OP, I think two key things to consider are this: 1) Nothing changed about the behavior of the weapon when ADS. Thus, it's primary purpose, to engage accurately at range, has also not changed. (For the most part... again, for the purposes of a streamlined discussion we have to exclude the peculiarities of a game where hipfire is entirely too good for most every weapon. You shouldn't realistically be able to hipfire someone from 80m). 2) The core of this whole thread comes down to whether or not you think the RR was "OK" or "way too good" in CQC. A large percentage of people, including the guy who has the most data and who's opinion matters the most, Rattati, say the latter. I tend to agree. My personal opinion is that, particularly in it's original form, it had entirely too high a DPS and not nearly enough drawbacks to offset it's strengths. It is relatively quiet, It has no fcking bullet trails (why it's the only rifle that doesn't simply boggles my mind to this day), and vastly superior range. I find myself saying "who the hell is shooting me" all the time because I can't see or hear anything. Which would be fine if I knew that if I could get in close, and be the one to dictate the engagement, I would have as big an advantage and win the large majority of the time. This was not the case.* TL;DR It honestly just boils down to that simple concept: Someone using another rifle should have the same advantage in CQC as the RR does at range. Now, if you would like to argue that there was a better way to do it, or that this was excessive, that too is a more easily debatable thing. However, the OP basically structured the argument on the premise that the RR was perfectly balanced and this was completely unnecessary. That it was actually more or less useless now, and also set up the CR as a straw man, conveniently disregarding that it was nerfed already and is being nerfed again. That's clearly either complete hyperbole or frankly a bunch of qq. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4332	Posted - 2014.10.29 22:39:00 - [4] - Quote NextDark Knight wrote: So to sum up this things.. CCP Feels that the Rail Rifle is to popular so they are hitting it hard with the nerf bat. Nothing else matters besides that fact. I'd have to assume you are referring to Rattati's statment to the effect that the fine details are not as important because the rail rifle accounted for 50% of kills. 1 weapon accounting for essentially as many kills as all the others combined implies pretty strongly that it has a substantial advantage over the rest. If you have a more plausible explanation for that, I'd love to hear it. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4334	Posted - 2014.10.30 02:06:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: NextDark Knight wrote: So to sum up this things.. CCP Feels that the Rail Rifle is to popular so they are hitting it hard with the nerf bat. Nothing else matters besides that fact. I'd have to assume you are referring to Rattati's statment to the effect that the fine details are not as important because the rail rifle accounted for 50% of kills. 1 weapon accounting for essentially as many kills as all the others combined implies pretty strongly that it has a substantial advantage over the rest. If you have a more plausible explanation for that, I'd love to hear it. I feel like that is somewhat of a fallacy. In a competitive genre like FPS players don't necessarily gravitate to a weapon because it has a "significant" advantage they do some because a weapon has "an advantage" that being said that disparity could be anything from game breaking RoF to slight percentage more damage per round or some such nonsense. Kind of feel like the nerf was heavy handed for watching clips of the game....not to say that it did not need some alterations like this....but perhaps not as great as this initial change. And that's quite possibly true. Nobody ever accused CCP of being overly subtle about things. On the flip side, though, I think NextDark's statement that "well, it's just popular so they want to nerf it" is probably the biggest fallacy in the history of the Dust forums. CCP does a lot of things, but nerfing weapons based on forum QQ and nothing else is not one of them. (The godfather of tactical logistics)