Since the statistic that led to the RR hipfire nerf was usage (the K/S was not that much out of line), and the usage disparity for scout suits appears to be even more off, I suspect that's on the table for a future balance update/hotfix.

So usage went up, despite not being OP, and then K/S just stayed highest because its good at long range? If that's the case, a CQC nerf will not have any effect, we can see that soon in the data.

Another theory would be that upon discovering a weapon that was OP, players started using it, and even though everyone is using it, it did not reduce its K/S at all while also getting the most kills for all Rifles by a huge margin, not usage.

Well said. Your approach has been really awesome for the game.

I must say though that I'm pretty shocked you guys don't have an empty map where you play around with all of the toys on a regular basis.

Such a test would be useful, but it is not going to be an equal experience to bring a weapon into a live fire match

Cheers,
Cross

PS ~ Pretty sure the Devs have maps like that to play with

The thing is, the Devs in general are terrible at their game, if the last Dev fight was anything to go off of.

Speaking of which, I think it's about time we have another "Fight the Devs" eventGǪ

So usage went up, despite not being OP, and then K/S just stayed highest because its good at long range? If that's the case, a CQC nerf will not have any effect, we can see that soon in the data.

Another theory would be that upon discovering a weapon that was OP, players started using it, and even though everyone is using it, it did not reduce its K/S at all while also getting the most kills for all Rifles by a huge margin, not usage.

That statement is a logical fallacy, sorry.

How does an engineer design an airplane if he has never flown one?

How does a scientist study gravity if he has never seen it?

How does the physicist describe quantum physics without touching atoms?

I can make more of these...

It's usually called the Scientific Method, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Thanks for all you do, but please troll someone else. I'm offering my opinion to try to help you and this game -- and responses like this certainly aren't reinforcing this behavior.

I certainly appreciate good feedback, but even if you meant it nicely, I completely disagree with this particular feedback and how it was put forth.

All that said and done, I did not mean to disrespect you or your intent to help the game. We are all in the same team.

So usage went up, despite not being OP, and then K/S just stayed highest because its good at long range? If that's the case, a CQC nerf will not have any effect, we can see that soon in the data.

Another theory would be that upon discovering a weapon that was OP, players started using it, and even though everyone is using it, it did not reduce its K/S at all while also getting the most kills for all Rifles by a huge margin, not usage.

You are correct that kills and spawns go hand in hand, i am just underlining a few facts

1) even though players migrate over to RR, there is no dilution of efficiency as might be expected
2) the trajectory of RR kills and spawns is alarming and could have led to an even greater disparity
3) some players have been downplaying these numbers, by saying sales = usage = non indicative of efficiency, usage is spawns, kills is the result is maybe one way to detach the two
4) Low end RR were also dominant, not just prototype, which was worrying.

End result, I want K/S to be similar, and for weapons of similar nature to have a similar result and usage.

If the Rail had a K/S of 2 and a tiny kill %, it could be assumed that it was a tricky rifle to master, but difficult enough to either need extensive specialization or player skill. The Scrambler was a case of that, but had, similarly to the RR, far too much power in CQC. The plan was to lead the TAR and SCR together by aligning their attributes a little, plus range vs dps adjustments. So far, it worked pretty well.

The Assault variants, can be treated like such a group, I would want them to be even in kills and K/S.

Hope this sheds some further light on the balancing effort.

Finally, I don't like being brought into any "do you even RR/ADS/tank/rep, bro". My approach is to balance scientifically, not based on gut feeling. My credentials as a player aren't relevant. I said "played" and by that I mean meaninfully played, it's not my weapon of choice. I have of course tried every weapon, and of course we have internal maps where we try weapons.

That said, I have no idea what my Loyalty Rank will be on my main

First, good on you and Leadfoot for the mature and positive exchange. Nice to see that on the forums.

Your post above actually helps me understand much more about your vision for balancing (keeping variants balanced vs balancing across whole weapon lines) which makes quite a bit more sense. I would point out that with FOTM and "op" stuff you get to a point in usage that actually creates the cascade effect that you see with RR usage & kills due to player perception. This is similar to my point about reading these trends and how it isn't dissimilar from observing trend analysis in the stock market or other statistically based activites measureing human dynamics and perception.

Basically, when Player X starts playing Dust (or has already been playing for a while) and he sees / hears that a lot of folks like the RR and maybe get's killed by one 5 or 6 times in a match he very naturally starts thinking "I think I need to skill into that RR". At that point, he puts some SP down on it and buys a bunch of SB-39s.

Bare in mind that Player X's K/D may well only vary slightly up or down with the RR versus his previous weapon of choice but he's now further contributing to the usage / kill stats that you accurately track and account for. He's contributing to the percpetion effect that other players see and feel...that they need to skill into the RR or whatever weapon we are talking about to remain competitive but perhaps not actually becoming that much more competitive.

Bottom line: you can possibly (not all the time) find yourself in a situaiton where kills and usage rates are noticably higher and it may not inidcate a vast increase in combat effectiveness for the individual player.

Please note, this isn't about the RR per se, it's just my observation of how player dynamics work and that perhaps it needs to be considered.

You are correct that kills and spawns go hand in hand, i am just underlining a few facts

1) even though players migrate over to RR, there is no dilution of efficiency as might be expected
2) the trajectory of RR kills and spawns is alarming and could have led to an even greater disparity
3) some players have been downplaying these numbers, by saying sales = usage = non indicative of efficiency, usage is spawns, kills is the result is maybe one way to detach the two
4) Low end RR were also dominant, not just prototype, which was worrying.

End result, I want K/S to be similar, and for weapons of similar nature to have a similar result and usage.

If the Rail had a K/S of 2 and a tiny kill %, it could be assumed that it was a tricky rifle to master, but difficult enough to either need extensive specialization or player skill. The Scrambler was a case of that, but had, similarly to the RR, far too much power in CQC. The plan was to lead the TAR and SCR together by aligning their attributes a little, plus range vs dps adjustments. So far, it worked pretty well.

The Assault variants, can be treated like such a group, I would want them to be even in kills and K/S.

Hope this sheds some further light on the balancing effort.

Finally, I don't like being brought into any "do you even RR/ADS/tank/rep, bro". My approach is to balance scientifically, not based on gut feeling. My credentials as a player aren't relevant. I said "played" and by that I mean meaninfully played, it's not my weapon of choice. I have of course tried every weapon, and of course we have internal maps where we try weapons.

That said, I have no idea what my Loyalty Rank will be on my main

I'd be up for that if the AR isn't able to shoot more than 20m and kicks wildly when shot for more than 7 rounds in a row and if the combat rifle became uncontrollable after two bursts and the scrambler overheated after three shots.

Maybe then you'll see how ridiculous your notion of 'balance' is.

I tried the RR after reading your QQ posts, but it was not even bad enough for me to replace it on my Logi fit , despite not having a sidearm to fall back on.

You're 100% correct that usage =/= OP, and that the fact that people flock to a weapon alone doesn't mean it's OP, but it should certainly raise the eyebrows of the person who's job it is to track such things.

The example you are giving, to me, is actually what Rattati is getting to in point #1: "even though players migrate over to RR, there is no dilution of efficiency as might be expected"

Take the Scrambler. It's not easy to use, but wrecks in the right hands, like Rattati said. It was around far longer than the RR but you never really saw the same migration to it. Because it's not easy to use.... it's very abusable with modded controllers or macros, but otherwise it's mechanics limited it. So, if every blueberry in the world started using it, you'd better believe the K/S would drop.

Didn't happen with the RR. All comers, from all the scrubs who needed the eHP of a sentinel to stay alive to every brainless noob in my local, they all started using it. And still did well.

50% of the people playing this game are not really good, are they? I doubt you'd answer yes to that.

That's the crux of the whole thing. The overall skill level here is not high enough that it makes any sense that if everyone started using a weapon because it killed them all the time, the overall K/S of the weapon wouldn't drop. It would have to strictly based on regression to the mean, if nothing else!

You're 100% correct that usage =/= OP, and that the fact that people flock to a weapon alone doesn't mean it's OP, but it should certainly raise the eyebrows of the person who's job it is to track such things.

The example you are giving, to me, is actually what Rattati is getting to in point #1: "even though players migrate over to RR, there is no dilution of efficiency as might be expected"

Take the Scrambler. It's not easy to use, but wrecks in the right hands, like Rattati said. It was around far longer than the RR but you never really saw the same migration to it. Because it's not easy to use.... it's very abusable with modded controllers or macros, but otherwise it's mechanics limited it. So, if every blueberry in the world started using it, you'd better believe the K/S would drop.

Didn't happen with the RR. All comers, from all the scrubs who needed the eHP of a sentinel to stay alive to every brainless noob in my local, they all started using it. And still did well.

50% of the people playing this game are not really good, are they? I doubt you'd answer yes to that.

That's the crux of the whole thing. The overall skill level here is not high enough that it makes any sense that if everyone started using a weapon because it killed them all the time, the overall K/S of the weapon wouldn't drop. It would have to strictly based on regression to the mean, if nothing else!

You seem to be mistaken as to what QQ actually is, I actually find it pretty offensive that you would try to diminish what are legitimate complaints and informed opinions by writing them off as "QQ". Leadfoot posted tests he did on hipfire. Combat rifles get 5 pixels of kick, Assault rifles get about 5 degrees, SCR's are much like combat rifles and functionally don't kick. Assault rails get 60 degrees of kick + left to right. Rails get 120 degrees of kick. That is not balance Fox, and you're an idiot if you claim that it is.

I've asked multiple times for what I think the relevant metric on the rail rifle is - What range are kills happening at, because it is a known fact that the rail rifle drastically outranges a lot of other guns and many people would happily sacrifice the 20-25% more dps they'd get from an AR to get 40m more range on a rail.

As I've said, nerfing the close quarters isn't the right thing to do, the rail needs a range nerf.

I think that many just want the RR to become a niche weapon due to it being overpopular rather than truly overpowered.

Either that, or they are judging things having never used the weapon for any significant amount of time, nor evaluated where the kills and deaths of this weapon are really occurring, and certainly not from experience in PCs -- where that weapon was been relegated to niche long ago...because it was already relatively ineffective when compared to every other rifle in CQC.

But it has been so popular for so long, and people don't like dying, so the reaction is to nerf the overpopular nature by making become less OP...when it was not OP in the first place (as evidenced by the K/S numbers which show it as in line with other rifles even before this nerf).

Overpopular in pubs != Overpowered

Listen, if the RR were as OP as some would have us believe, it would be used by the best players in the game in the most competitive field, PC. However, the anti-infantry weapons used in PC is full of HMGs and SG scouts, with the occasional CR. The RR is really only used in very specific situations (camping the supply depot bridge in the rings map, or the mushroom in the two towers maps, or guarding the approach to one of the outside points in the bridge map from the top of a building). Why? Because the best players in this game (not me!) figured out long ago that the RR sucked in comparison and other weapons simply were more powerful.

Why the rest of the players haven't figured it out is beyond me, but it is crystal clear when you watch any PC killfeed what's being used, and if you bring a RR into any spot accessible to a scout or a heavy you'll learn real quick how ill-equpped the RR and ARR are in comparison.

Now, I'm not saying we should balance PC matches at the expense of pubs, but I am suggesting there are lessons to be learned there that apply to general gameplay and how to nerf said weapon if it is overused. And none of those lessons point at reducing the CQC effectivness of the already-weakest CQC gun, the RR/ARR.

Now, if our intent is to make the weapon into a niche weapon and drive down usage, I'd say this nerf will likely attain that goal, but not without a significant drop in terms of effectiveness (and perhaps a balancing hotfix to correct this over-correction).

Regardless, and even if I feel that he missed the mark with this latest nerf, I'm confident that Ratatti will get this right over time, so perhaps I should just shut up and let him figure it out through iterative balancing adjustments.

Have fun guys...Leadfoot

John, I see your point, however there is no way that we can really know what the relative combat effectiveness of players are before and after a weapon migration point.

I agree that at least 50% of the players are below average...obvious statistical fact. My point is that if you had an average KDR of 1 before the switch from PR to RR and then have the same KDR it's not about the weapon being OP. OP weapons should create a noticeable and significant uptick in player combat statistics at the individual player level. There is a bit of just finding a weapon style that fits your play style and that is in effect here as well.

I would also point out that many on the forums tout being able to "rek face" with just about any weapon they lay hands on and I tried this or that and did fine. Some of this is true and some not...but individual player skill is ultimately the greatest leveler and the most difficult thing to account for in stats in a game like this.

Planetary conquest analysis up next week.