|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1275
   |
Posted - 2014.10.29 08:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Great lay down and honestly this is a dialogue I would prefer to have on coms or maybe you can come on to the Biomassed podcast with us one day.
First...the stats seem quite solid, albeit difficult for me to interpret a bit. Note that I think they are factually accuate.
Second...the stats don't always tell a full story and watching FOTM trends is not unlike the stock market. Numbers move based on peoples perceptions and that doesn't always mean the ground truth. It's very risky to balance game play on pure numbers without accounting for the human factor.
RR and CR were heavily invested in post 1.8 due to them being a new weapon and they were over powered in comparison to the PR and SCR in particular. More people using the weapon lead to more kills which drives player perception that the weapon is OP. I remember when the venerable Duovolle AR was being labled "OP" left, right, and center (even by me once or twice) and there was only the SCR to compare it to. The proto AR of today is more powerful than the old "OP" version.
I have no doubt that RR needed to be addressed. My point is that there may be serious design concerns that are making the weapon difficult to balance without fully painting into a corner similar to something like the LR. I do believe that the amount of recoil is simply too high...it far exceeds any of the other weapons in this regard now. For the RR...higher recoil means more diffculty in applying it's already lowest in class DPS at it's optimal range and that doesn't strike me as a good thing. The problem is that almost anything done to lower perceived or real CQC effectiveness will also directly impact it's ability to engage at long range as well. Also, the recoil clearly feels much to high for the ARR if that is a short / mid-range oriented weapon.
I think my concern is the balance tools being used to bring the weapon into balance simply will relegate the RR to status of the Flaylock of a few months ago. My bigger concern is that the racial lines are balanced to be equally competitive in the current play environment of Dust.
There is an inherent issue when by default all tactical objectives force you to have the majority of your engagements in CQC range to secure victory and one race is a clear outlier to that design. The concept that Alena offered to you in regards to the ARR does help, however, you need to look across the racial lines in a holistic fashion I think.
I sincerely appreciate the work you are doing and support your efforts on behalf of the community and I'm glad you are letting us all be a small part of the process.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1279
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Daddrobit wrote:Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:I have no doubt that RR needed to be addressed. My point is that there may be serious design concerns that are making the weapon difficult to balance without fully painting into a corner similar to something like the LR. I do believe that the new amount of recoil is simply too high...it far exceeds any of the other weapons in this regard now. For the RR...higher recoil means more diffculty in applying it's already lowest in class DPS at it's optimal range and that doesn't strike me as a good thing. The problem is that almost anything done to lower perceived or real CQC effectiveness will also directly impact it's ability to engage at long range as well. Also, the recoil clearly feels much to high for the ARR if that is a short / mid-range oriented weapon. From what I hear, the hipfire seems a bit too out of whack in comparison to the other rifles. -However- CCP Rattati wrote:
the Rail RifleGÇÖs Close Combat ability was reduced severely by increasing Kick and Charge-up Time, with no change to ADS Dispersion or Kick.
This means that it's optimal range effectiveness has -not- been affected. Outside of 30-ish meters up to its effective of 100, the ADS should almost always be used and the recoil with operations up is completely manageable.
1) Not sure if you mean hip fire out of whack in terms of too good or too bad. One thing that does throw off CQC hipfire discussions is how damage per shot (alpha) effects this. My impression is the strongest asset in CQC the RR (and Breach AR for that matter has) is alpha damage. You have land few shots and the slow rate of fire lets you track the targets longer.
2) When using the RR at range it certainly can dominate in open terrain. The recoil is still quite noticable particularly when compared to other rifles. The weapon was designed for sustained long range fire and at range the combination of charge time and recoil both work to degrade the weapons ability to deliver it's lowest in-class level of DPS. That said, you are quite correct that ADS is the way to go with the weapon generally. My point is that it's a bit too similar to the LR to be a general use infantry weapon.
.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1280
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
CommanderBolt wrote:Maiden, the LR is not a general use rifle in any sense of the word. It does not generally get used  it has very specific engagement ranges and lets be honest its not very popular because while it is an awesome weapon to use in very specific circumstances, it falls flat on its face when someone gets close or the type of level does not permit good positioning (Say indoors or in confined complexes). @ CCP - Awesome Dev blog. Its great that there are actual stats and graphs to back this all up. I always knew RR`s were the most used thing in pubs but I didn't realise it was quite like this. Hopefully we are getting closer to achieving balance. (Will the Combat Rifle be next?)
If you insert "RR" for "LR" in your initial sentence you just described the RR quite accurately.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1281
|
Posted - 2014.10.29 14:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:This is a bit of an eye opener and thanks for sharing.
However, it still looks like a crucial element is missing, how rifles are being used in game. In my humble opinion, there is no reason for all ten rifles to be getting equal amounts of kills per spawn.
Do you take into conideration for example usage and design philosophy first and see if the gun is overperforming or tweak the numbers to follow design philosphy afterwards?
Using the Rail Rifle: Design to be a long range in line with caldari lore. Is there data to show that wow, the RR is getting alot of close range kills this is unusual for a longe range weapon? Or rather the RR is getting alot of kills everywhere lets nerf the CQC because its long range weapon?
Before any proposal i'm sure you do need the stats to back you up. I'm curious as too what stats unrelated to kills are taken into consideration, also other factors such as ease of use, fitting costs, market purchases, damage output etc. By this reasoning its easy to see why shotguns remain untouched, a scout might one shot a medium frameor two/ three shot a heavy and get killed right afterwards by another scout, it might look just fine according to these metrics bu IMO unbalanced in terms of gameplay.
It doesn't really matter though, no single rifle should be doing 50% of all Rifle kills. We could also just have nerfed damage until it was not as extremely good at all ranges, hurting the weapons primary function.
CCP Rattati...I"m not sure I'm reading this with the intent you are trying to convey. To me, what you just said is that the reason for over (or even underpreformance) is irrelevant and that using nerfs and buffs to bring your usage percentages into your internal tolerance is your answer. I may be misreading your intent but that is what it sounds like. If I was reading it right...it seems a little short sighted or i really don't understand what you want the optimal % usage spread to be (i.e. 15% usage, +/- 2%). This also doesn't address that the nature of the game drives you to certain types of combat engagements to secure victory.
Looking why things are outliers exist should be very important, perhaps as important as simply identifiing the outlier, because you may not acutally be solving the root problem. As to nerfing damage...I actually think you could make a good case for that. I honestly think the weapon usage concept wasn't on good ground and you are doing a solid job at working with it...it strikes me as one of the most difficult weapons to get into a sweet spot.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
|
|
| |
|