DUST Search - What the Fox says: about RR hip fire kick

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

What the Fox says: about RR hip fire kick

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4778	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:04:00 - [1] - Quote I use a Rail Rifle on my Drop Uplink Logi fit, so I decided to run a few ambush matches with this fit to see what all the whining was about. What the Fox Says: Rail Rifle hip fire kick is fine. I still feel like I can defend myself with the Rail Rifle should I find myself in a close quarters combat situation. I will continue to use the Rail Rifle on my Drop Uplink Logi fit despite not having a sidearm. I try to avoid CQC on that fit, and if it should find me, I still trust in my Rail Rifle. The Rail Rifle is not the best choice for CQC now, but it is serviceable. If you skilled into the Rail Rifle because you felt it was the best choice for CQC before, then you were taking advantage of a flaw in the game and you should feel bad. Yes, if you hold the trigger down and fire off the full clip from the hip without bursting or adjusting your aim, you will end up facing the sky. DONGÇÖT DO THIS IN COMBAT! If you fire off your full clip in 3 bursts, the hip fire kick is quite manageable. You will probably want to avoid short bursts due to the charge time, but longer bursts work fine. If kick is walking you off target, apply apposing pressure with the right stick to compensate. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9756	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:15:00 - [2] - Quote I have never played with the ARR before, just tried it out properly in a few matches, really can't deal with the chargeup. Anecdotally, it felt like a kicky breach, taking down most suits in 3-5 shots. I usually don't fire more than 8 shots ever in a row with any weapon except ACR so kick buildup didn't really trouble me. Actually I felt it was kind of helpful to aim at the belly as the second or third shot would be a headshot . But we will see what players do and base our next iteration on that data. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

sabre prime Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 710	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:39:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I have never played with the ARR before, just tried it out properly in a few matches, really can't deal with the chargeup. Anecdotally, it felt like a kicky breach, taking down most suits in 3-5 shots. I usually don't fire more than 8 shots ever in a row with any weapon except ACR so kick buildup didn't really trouble me. Actually I felt it was kind of helpful to aim at the belly as the second or third shot would be a headshot . But we will see what players do and base our next iteration on that data. Does the ARR have the same charge time as the regular RR? If so is there justification for reducing the charge up time on the ARR? The slow blade penetrates the shield.
sabre prime Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 710	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:53:00 - [4] - Quote Just reading another thread and it was mentioned that the increase in hip fire kick that the RR just received also affects the ARR. Is this true? Did the ARR hip fire kick also increase at the same time as the RR? If so you just inadvertently nerfed the ARR, surely? The slow blade penetrates the shield.
BL4CKST4R La Muerte Eterna Dark Taboo 3240	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:04:00 - [5] - Quote I like the ARR functionally how it is now. I still prefer it over most weapons. Just now instead of compensating cqc with a bolt pistol it would be wise to use a smg or any other short ranged sidearm. supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 624	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:11:00 - [6] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I use a Rail Rifle on my Drop Uplink Logi fit, so I decided to run a few ambush matches with this fit to see what all the whining was about. What the Fox Says: Rail Rifle hip fire kick is fine. It is manageable. I still feel like I can defend myself with the Rail Rifle should I find myself in a close quarters combat situation. I will continue to use the Rail Rifle on my Drop Uplink Logi fit despite not having a sidearm. I try to avoid CQC on that fit, and if it should find me, I still trust in my Rail Rifle. The Rail Rifle is not the best choice for CQC now, but it is serviceable. If you skilled into the Rail Rifle because you felt it was the best choice for CQC before, then you were taking advantage of a flaw in the game and you should feel bad. Yes, if you hold the trigger down and fire off the full clip from the hip without bursting or adjusting your aim, you will end up facing the sky. DONGÇÖT DO THIS IN COMBAT! If you fire off your full clip in 3 bursts, the hip fire kick is quite manageable. You will probably want to avoid short bursts due to the charge time, but longer bursts work fine. If kick is walking you off target, apply apposing pressure with the right stick to compensate. if youre in CQC.... you charge, shoot, stop shooting because of recoil, charge, shoot, stop shooting because of recoil, charge, shoot, stop shooting because of recoil? how does that effect DPS with all that charging? whats our real DPS now, 200 something lol? all other rifle simply.... shoot.
Slave of MORTE Eyniletti Rangers Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:54:00 - [7] - Quote I agree i havnt used rr much but I built a Cal assault yesterday it operates just fine as a long range gun
Spectral Clone Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 2961	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:00:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: ARR ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Fix mouse support in Dust 514! How to do it: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=965407#post965407
Haerr Clone Manque 1740	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:09:00 - [9] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: ARR ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Haerr Clone Manque 1740	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:10:00 - [10] - Quote What Does The Fox Say... that would make an awesome band name or song name...

Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1286	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:17:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I have never played with the ARR before, just tried it out properly in a few matches, really can't deal with the chargeup. Anecdotally, it felt like a kicky breach, taking down most suits in 3-5 shots. I usually don't fire more than 8 shots ever in a row with any weapon except ACR so kick buildup didn't really trouble me. Actually I felt it was kind of helpful to aim at the belly as the second or third shot would be a headshot . But we will see what players do and base our next iteration on that data. +1 for getting hands on the ARR. First person perspective always gives you context to both our positive and negative perceptions about a weapon / suite / ect. Couple quick thoughts: 1) The charge time can be overcome to degree by "pre-charging" or fluttering the trigger and that's not optimal if your are a player. It also creates some serious challenges if you run a pure Caldari logi sense weapon charging and equipment switching can occaisionally leave you with your finger pulling the trigger and the weapon isn't charging or firing. This is why I strongly advocate for a charge system more akin to the small rail turrets...you can actually lower the charge time and get a much better effect that can be used to balance the weapon. PS...If you tried the ARR and the charge was hard to work with for you...try the RR with the now longer charge time. 2) To a degree recoil / dispersion can work in your favor in combat...to a degree. It's actually more useful in high RoF weapons than slower firing alpha oriented weapons because alpha weapons are basically constructed around the idea of landing a higer percentage of shots but lower volume to achieve the kill. My recommendation and as you've seen Alena's is to essentially bring the recoil back to pre-nerf levels, lower the range a bit, and let's see how that goes. 3) 3-5 shots? Sounds about right for low end suits...did you have experience going up against proto level equipment or vets? Just curious. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2089	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:25:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I have never played with the ARR before, just tried it out properly in a few matches, really can't deal with the chargeup. Anecdotally, it felt like a kicky breach, taking down most suits in 3-5 shots. I usually don't fire more than 8 shots ever in a row with any weapon except ACR so kick buildup didn't really trouble me. Actually I felt it was kind of helpful to aim at the belly as the second or third shot would be a headshot . But we will see what players do and base our next iteration on that data. 5 shots with the ARR at 42 damage a shot for proto is 210 damage. What suits were you mostly killing? Once the kick is reverted back to pre-nerf levels, I suggest a range cut, and then the ARR should be good performance wise. Proof that Rattati/CCP do listen to the playerbase.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4788	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:22:00 - [13] - Quote I support making the Assault Rail Rifle into a viable close to mid range weapon, as an urban warfare viable alternative to the Rail Rifle for people heavily invested in Rail Rifle Operation. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1913	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:36:00 - [14] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: if youre in CQC.... you charge, shoot, stop shooting because of recoil, charge, shoot, stop shooting because of recoil, charge, shoot, stop shooting because of recoil? how does that effect DPS with all that charging? whats our real DPS now, 200 something lol? all other rifle simply.... shoot. How does that effect DPS? It goes to 0 because if the person you're going up against has any semblence of gun game and you don't see them first and kill them in the first few shots, you're dead. With the gun where it is now, I can seemingly put twice the effective DPS downrange with a scrambler pistol or SMG.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2090	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:37:00 - [15] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I support making the Assault Rail Rifle into a viable close to mid range weapon, as an urban warfare viable alternative to the Rail Rifle for people heavily invested in Rail Rifle Operation. Been pushing for this for a few days. The goal is for the ARR to be CQC, and the RR long range, but for neither to be both at the same time. Once the kick is reduced, and if Rattati reduces the range to 60m, Then we can run metrics. Proof that Rattati/CCP do listen to the playerbase.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1913	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:44:00 - [16] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I have never played with the ARR before, just tried it out properly in a few matches, really can't deal with the chargeup. Anecdotally, it felt like a kicky breach, taking down most suits in 3-5 shots. I usually don't fire more than 8 shots ever in a row with any weapon except ACR so kick buildup didn't really trouble me. Actually I felt it was kind of helpful to aim at the belly as the second or third shot would be a headshot . But we will see what players do and base our next iteration on that data. 5 shots with the ARR at 42 damage a shot for proto is 210 damage. What suits were you mostly killing? Exactly. It's a noob killer. Anyone with some tank or, heaven forbid, an EWAR advantage, and you're dead. I would suggest that the k/s data be supplemented by a deeper dive into the distance the kills occured in, if possible, as I suspect this will give greater insight into what is happening with the RR/ARR and how best to address it.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1913	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:49:00 - [17] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I have never played with the ARR before I'm among your biggest fans, Rattati, and I think you're the best thing to happen to Dust, but I must admit I was a bit disturbed to read this. How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1491	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:20:00 - [18] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I support making the Assault Rail Rifle into a viable close to mid range weapon, as an urban warfare viable alternative to the Rail Rifle for people heavily invested in Rail Rifle Operation. 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. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1915	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:27:00 - [19] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I use a Rail Rifle on my Drop Uplink Logi fit, so I decided to run a few ambush matches with this fit to see what all the whining was about. What the Fox Says: Rail Rifle hip fire kick is fine. It is manageable. I still feel like I can defend myself with the Rail Rifle should I find myself in a close quarters combat situation. I don't agree that the kick is managable, and I don't believe you can defend yourself against anyone outside of a noob. And have you tried the ARR?
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 403	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:31:00 - [20] - Quote Haerr wrote: What Does The Fox Say... "What the cuss? Cuss, cuss, cuss!" Nerf scouts. Because the cuss frame is cuss imbalanced with the cuss rest of cuss us. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.

el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 403	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:32:00 - [21] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I have never played with the ARR before I'm among your biggest fans, Rattati, and I think you're the best thing to happen to Dust, but I must admit I was a bit disturbed to read this. Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. Agreed, this is thin-ice territory. Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1917	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:37:00 - [22] - Quote el OPERATOR wrote: Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. 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.
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 404	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:08:00 - [23] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. 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. On the table? That cuss is the centerpiece and cussing host of the party. Nerf scouts. Their marriage to imbalance must be annulled. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game RUST415 187	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:36:00 - [24] - Quote 3-5 shots? Lol rattati can we swap matchmaking? Sick of heavies NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life Delta- bye bye ads, bye bye scr
xAckie Ghost. Mob 458	Posted - 2014.10.30 19:20:00 - [25] - Quote why are you addressing yourself in the 3rd person? Do you have a dissociative identity disorder?
Vyuru Algintal Core Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2014.10.31 01:15:00 - [26] - Quote So yeah, now I went and messed around with the RR some. RR Prof lvl 3 Standard RR tested Isn't the charge before firing supposed to be higher? It seems shorter to me. Beyond that I don't really see what the fuss is about. I can get to 14 rounds left in the magazine before the recoil gets too much for me to control by kicking around all over the place. ADS is pretty good to somewhere in the 8-14 rounds left in the magazine, then it get's too much kick for fine aiming. Overall this seems pretty good, and pretty comparable to plasma rifles, which typically you want to stop firing every 10-15 rounds so that dispersion doesn't get too wide.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9801	Posted - 2014.10.31 04:51:00 - [27] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. 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 "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4354	Posted - 2014.10.31 04:52:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. 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 Am a scientist, can confirm. (The godfather of tactical logistics)
Vell0cet Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2456	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:09:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. 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 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. Best PvE idea ever!

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9805	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:26:00 - [30] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. 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 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. Who says we don't? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"



CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9812	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:48:00 - [31] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 6864	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:53:00 - [32] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. 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. I haven't tried it out myself since the hipfire changes but it doesn't seem to have mattered to the users at all. Got killed by it at least five times today in engagements that should have been cake with my AR. Two occasions I was using a Shotgun and still lost. Soon as the PSN goes back up from maintenance I'll give it a shot, personally, since I have all the weapons at level 5. See just how bad it really is from a Gallente's point of view. Important Legion Transparency Post Lv5
Cross Atu OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 3644	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:54:00 - [33] - Quote Vell0cet wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. 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 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 See a cool idea thread? Mail me the title and I'll take a look =)
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2425	Posted - 2014.10.31 05:57:00 - [34] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: Vell0cet wrote: -Snip- 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" eventGÇª Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 6864	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:00:00 - [35] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Cross Atu wrote: Vell0cet wrote: -Snip- 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" eventGÇª Bearing in mind, of course, they won the Dev vs Players Tournament at Fanfest. Important Legion Transparency Post Lv5
Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 6864	Posted - 2014.10.31 06:56:00 - [36] - Quote Yeah, just tried it out in a Domination match... It only starts to get unmanageable after about 12 rounds of the 42 round magazine. But, considering that with just 12 rounds you've dished out 564 - 620 damage (depending on which power level of Rail Rifle you're using) it's really not quite so bad, imo as long as you have even some semblance of fire control/trigger discipline. I could see the kick being reduced to about 15 rounds in before it gets unmanageable but any more then that and you're not really doing much to the weapon that can't be covered by a little consideration. Afterall, it's not supposed to have some marked advantage in CQC... It's a long range weapon, damn thing is -supposed- to make you want to switch out to the handy Magsec whenever **** gets too close for comfort. Important Legion Transparency Post Lv5
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 625	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:31:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. 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. so if the data shows no change in usage, will unerf the RR? considering that the nerf had no effect, it would be unnecessary. perhaps youd go with the other option of actually making the RR a long range precision weapon? decreased recoil, increased optimal range, lower damage per shot
Her Chosen Grade No.2 12	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:43:00 - [38] - Quote The highest KDR games on record in this game have all been with the RR. Watch a Saxonmish video, or usuckatdust Vaughn, etc. The weapon was overly effective at all ranges. Long, medium, and short. Balancing it back to make have less do-all was a long time coming. But the aim assist needs correction. ALL WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME AIM ASSET AT ALL RANGES.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4243	Posted - 2014.10.31 07:53:00 - [39] - Quote Screw aim assist. I hate trying to use it. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1929	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:05:00 - [40] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Rhetorical Question: How can one hope to balance weapons if the one in charge of balancing them has a never used the gun? Numbers are certainly important, but there's nothing like looking down the sight and firing it. 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 Sorry, that "statement" was a heartfelt concern in the form of a question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement Two can play that game. Infer I am uneducated if you wish (would you like to compare degrees or resumes?), but I think you should still use the weapon before you decide how to nerf it. 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.


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9832	Posted - 2014.10.31 08:34:00 - [41] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1929	Posted - 2014.10.31 09:09:00 - [42] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: 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. Thanks & I apologize for inciting you. Disagree with my method or word choice, that's certainly fair. However, I do feel strongly that the underlying point is a valid one... using the weapon is not too much to ask, as there are insights into how to balance that no spreadsheet could truly uncover...and I think you reacted more to my messaging than my message. And that's cool, I still love you and all you've done for the game. I was very sincere in my works of kindness. You've really done superb work on this game since taking over the reins and that has directly led to countless hours of enjoyment for a great many people, myself included. Thanks again...Leadfoot
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1929	Posted - 2014.10.31 09:23:00 - [43] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Nerf scouts. Just based off the stats comparisons. 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. OK, so now that we've kissed and made up , let's discuss this one a bit because you've mentioned it a few times, and despite thinking it through a few times, it has me quite confused... If K/S is relatively steady, how do kills not track usage? Because it seems to me that it would, rather closely. Am I missing something? Are we co-mingling overused and overpowered? If we aren't, shouldn't K/S be a better measure of overpowered than kills? If we are, can a weapon be perfectly balanced but still overused? More to the point: Are we trying to strike a balance in weapon effectiveness (i.e. K/S) or weapon usage (i.e. spawns if k/s is constant) or both? Am I missing something here? Thanks for your time & insight...Leadfoot

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9844	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:05:00 - [44] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

matsumoto yuichi san The Elite Few Inc. The Methodical Alliance 75	Posted - 2014.10.31 13:34:00 - [45] - Quote i say good work mr rattati, now all we have to do is figure out how to make the meta of the game not spam heavies onto point , or run around in scouts. and the only strategy be more than, place uplink on tallest thing. :)
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1286	Posted - 2014.10.31 14:05:00 - [46] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4366	Posted - 2014.10.31 18:25:00 - [47] - Quote Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: 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'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! (The godfather of tactical logistics)
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1933	Posted - 2014.10.31 19:14:00 - [48] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: 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. Thanks, Ratatti, for this post. It gives me (and I'm sure others) a great deal more insight into how you're trying to go about things -- trying to balance weapons by type, while keeping their kills (roughly, usage) and K/S (efficiency) as equal as possible among the non-niche weapons (laser, scrambler rifle, and plasma cannon being three exceptions, I presume). So, if I've understood you correctly, you're trying to balance both usage and efficiency -- certainly not an easy task, and against this backdrop the recent changes make a great deal more sense. CCP Rattati wrote: 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 Thanks for the clarification. Had I known this, I most certainly would not have used the words I did in prior posts. For me (and I suspect a great many players), it's all about gut feel as prior to this post it's all I (we) had. I have explained how that gut feel differed from your own (and why). We did not have the numbers, and then when we did, it appeared (to me at least) if the issue was much more about overuse than overpowered. Now, having had a chance to sleep on our back&forth, I think that my perception of this gun as already very lackluster in CQC stemmed from my experience using it in PC (which is why I gave it up some time ago as my primary of choice), rather than its serviceability in pubs. It was already woefully ineffective against scouts and heavies because of it's CQC kick and dispersion, and this change, quite literally, made it 4x worse. I had flashbacks to PCs past including strafing scouts shotgunning me while dancing between my bullets, whiffing on heavies who can barely move, and my initial games with the RR reinforced this belief. Because, to me at least, if our intent is to drive down usage that making the gun's most glaring weakness even worse was simply not the way to do it. Partially because of my prior experience and rationale for moving away from the gun, but also because I truly believe there are other better ways to have done it short of "after five or 10 bullets in CQC, pull out a sidearm, because the gun kicks such that your chance of hitting much less killing someone is near zero, particularly when faced with some skill or HP downrange. Which is why, incidentally, I asked if you had compared kill and death distances when looking at K/S -- because I suspected the gun already was ineffective at CQC range and those numbers would bear it out and show you, empirically and objectively, what I was trying to explain as my "gut feel". Anyway, thanks again for listening and your response. I appreciate it...Leadfoot
el OPERATOR Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 408	Posted - 2014.10.31 20:24:00 - [49] - Quote So.... Crisis Averted!!!(?)!!! I personally have only RR a couple times, when it was first released. It was pretty ez mode but I don't like the dotsight. But thats just me. Nerf scouts. Whether by k/s, usage, raw data OR gut feeling, the imbalances are undeniable. Open-Beta Vet. Drunk Night Tree Burner. This is my Main and Original. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4797	Posted - 2014.10.31 21:47:00 - [50] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I support making the Assault Rail Rifle into a viable close to mid range weapon, as an urban warfare viable alternative to the Rail Rifle for people heavily invested in Rail Rifle Operation. 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. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1495	Posted - 2014.10.31 22:01:00 - [51] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: MINA Longstrike wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I support making the Assault Rail Rifle into a viable close to mid range weapon, as an urban warfare viable alternative to the Rail Rifle for people heavily invested in Rail Rifle Operation. 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 seem to be mistaken as to what QQ actually is. 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. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1939	Posted - 2014.10.31 23:53:00 - [52] - Quote 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 and it's relative rarity in PC). Overpopular != OP I'm starting to feel like a broken record, so I should probably go back to practicing with the CR or BrAR, rather than beating my virtual head against the wall here.
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1287	Posted - 2014.11.01 00:40:00 - [53] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: 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! 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. "Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero Skype: jaysyn.larrisen Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4799	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:11:00 - [54] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: 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'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! That is my take on it as well. I get the impression that some people donGÇÖt really think about what Rattati is saying before they respond. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4799	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:34:00 - [55] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: 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 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 call your posts QQ because you make it sound far worse than it actually is. You have to hold the trigger through the expenditure of an entire clip to get 120 degrees of kick, and that is without any attempt to compensate. What competent player would empty an entire clip in one burst? Most of the kills I get with the RR are in the 30m to 40m rang. A rang nerf would not change that any more than the hip fire kick would. However, the hip fire kick does make it weaker at very close rang, which means there is a tradeoff to picking the RR now. Every weapon should have a tradeoff. When one weapon is good in every situation, then there is no reason to ever use anything else. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4799	Posted - 2014.11.01 01:58:00 - [56] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: 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 Every weapon should be a niche weapon. If one weapon does everything well, why would anyone every use anything else? Balance decisions must consider both PC and Public Matches. In this case the RR may well have been balanced in PC, but for unskilled players in Public matches the RR worked just as well in CQC as any other weapon. The RR was not OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the most skilled hands. The RR was OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the least skilled hands. It was too easy for low to mid level players to get exceptional results with it. It was too easy to use. So perhaps we need another word to use instead of Overpowered to describe this phenomena. (I detest the term GÇ£noob-tubGÇ¥ by the way.) I think you are too focused on only the top 1% of players, and are not giving any consideration to the realities of balancing for the other 99%. Ratatti has to look at both. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4377	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:35:00 - [57] - Quote Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: John Demonsbane wrote: Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: 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! 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. Lol, yes certainly you can't trust how much awesomer everyone on the forums is. Or base any kind of weapon balancing on forum buzz. I used to follow regynum around on the forums and post: "Results not typical. Your results may vary, Regynum is not approved by the FDA to diagnose or treat any disease." And you could certainly be right. Maybe not one single persons KDR changed when switching to the RR. And maybe MIna is right and there were not that many RR kills under 40m. Personally I doubt that seriously, more so Mina's contention than yours. Thing is, though, even if CCP didn't track it, you would honestly have to assume that, given the objective-based nature of most of the game modes, there was a lot of CQC involved. (If you didn't you would run the risk of being anti-science in that you were using your opinion as a basis of interpreting data instead of the other way around,) (The godfather of tactical logistics)

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9887	Posted - 2014.11.01 02:57:00 - [58] - Quote Planetary conquest analysis up next week. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1495	Posted - 2014.11.01 03:47:00 - [59] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Planetary conquest analysis up next week. That should be helpful, I know it's annoying to be prodded again but can/will/are you able to do an analytic on range? I also play MechWarrior: online and one of the problems that they experience in that is that long range missiles are incredibly powerful and dominating in lower Elo brackets but in higher skill brackets they go practically unused in favor of more skill oriented higher dps weapons. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 626	Posted - 2014.11.01 03:59:00 - [60] - Quote If the goal was to drive down usage, why haven't they redesigned the maps to have more cover and less open areas? RR is great because there's always 9 miles of open field between you and some guy you want to shoot at. Rooftop campers can only be hit by RR or sniper rifles effectively. And open field give first strike advantage to RR. I can always find a spot on a map to abuse the RR range. If you want more usage out of short range weapons then you need maps very obscured line of sight, plenty of cover, ceilings and enclosed areas that can't be viewed at long range. The bare bones map design is the problem you want solve if you're trying to drive down RR usage.

Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2097	Posted - 2014.11.01 04:21:00 - [61] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: If the goal was to drive down usage, why haven't they redesigned the maps to have more cover and less open areas? RR is great because there's always 9 miles of open field between you and some guy you want to shoot at. Rooftop campers can only be hit by RR or sniper rifles effectively. And open field give first strike advantage to RR. I can always find a spot on a map to abuse the RR range. If you want more usage out of short range weapons then you need maps very obscured line of sight, plenty of cover, ceilings and enclosed areas that can't be viewed at long range. The bare bones map design is the problem you want solve if you're trying to drive down RR usage. In this light, a map that was solely indoors would have very low RR usage. Think of the Gallente Research Facility domination. Almost no RRs there, because everyone is underground or in the city. RR's shine on the bridge domination because there is so much open space. Proof that Rattati/CCP do listen to the playerbase.
GLOBAL fils'de RAGE Consolidated Dust 29	Posted - 2014.11.01 06:46:00 - [62] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: If the goal was to drive down usage, why haven't they redesigned the maps to have more cover and less open areas? RR is great because there's always 9 miles of open field between you and some guy you want to shoot at. Rooftop campers can only be hit by RR or sniper rifles effectively. And open field give first strike advantage to RR. I can always find a spot on a map to abuse the RR range. If you want more usage out of short range weapons then you need maps very obscured line of sight, plenty of cover, ceilings and enclosed areas that can't be viewed at long range. The bare bones map design is the problem you want solve if you're trying to drive down RR usage. No,no,no..lol On the contrary we Caldari demand a "salt flats" map with a 7km radius so that we can use EVE lore and tactics on a planets surface.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 626	Posted - 2014.11.01 08:02:00 - [63] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: If the goal was to drive down usage, why haven't they redesigned the maps to have more cover and less open areas? RR is great because there's always 9 miles of open field between you and some guy you want to shoot at. Rooftop campers can only be hit by RR or sniper rifles effectively. And open field give first strike advantage to RR. I can always find a spot on a map to abuse the RR range. If you want more usage out of short range weapons then you need maps very obscured line of sight, plenty of cover, ceilings and enclosed areas that can't be viewed at long range. The bare bones map design is the problem you want solve if you're trying to drive down RR usage. In this light, a map that was solely indoors would have very low RR usage. Think of the Gallente Research Facility domination. Almost no RRs there, because everyone is underground or in the city. RR's shine on the bridge domination because there is so much open space. Exactly. There's only two places on that map I can deploy RR effectively and both are fairly open to flanking and counter attacks. The new maps and sockets will be interesting. Rattati, do you have map data? I'd like to know where the most traffic is and if it's at all possible, it would be great to distinguish where the most kills are made and most deaths are made. The range between the two as well as the suits involved would tell an interesting story as to what happened. Or even better, develope a way to record matches and play them back with the ability to view each players perspective. This would be a powerful tool
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4804	Posted - 2014.11.01 15:18:00 - [64] - Quote As a Cartographer, I would love to see maps showing where all the kills occurred in a match. Heck, I would love to have the raw data and create a map like that. You could probably draw many insights from such a map. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1503	Posted - 2014.11.01 16:59:00 - [65] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I call your posts QQ because you make it sound far worse than it actually is. You have to hold the trigger through the expenditure of an entire clip to get 120 degrees of kick, and that is without any attempt to compensate. What competent player would empty an entire clip in one burst? Most of the kills I get with the RR are in the 30m to 40m rang. A rang nerf would not change that any more than the hip fire kick would. However, the hip fire kick does make it weaker at very close rang, which means there is a tradeoff to picking the RR now. Every weapon should have a tradeoff. When one weapon is good in every situation, then there is no reason to ever use anything else. It is your opinion that I make it sound worse than it actually is. I don't really. I still see people empty entire magazines while hipfiring the rail rifle, with frequency. I will agree that weapons should have tradeoffs, however the rail rifle already has the tradeoff of doing the lowest DPS by a pretty significant margin - it shouldn't also have the 'tradeoff' of being impossible to control when hipfired. Unless the other guns have to make similar 'tradeoffs' like the blaster being unable to shoot further than 20m. I'm being facetious about this to make a point fox, a point that maybe you don't understand. There is a much larger set of factors affecting the rail rifles usability than any other gun and there is little substantiated reasoning for it beyond 'it was popular so we decided to nerf the crap out of it' Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1948	Posted - 2014.11.01 18:38:00 - [66] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Every weapon should be a niche weapon. If one weapon does everything well, why would anyone every use anything else? What niche does the AR and CR (and even ScR) have? They doesn't work outside their range. That's it. The 50+m hole is a far different hole to fill than the up-close killing distances. First off, at range, you can kust stay cover to stop someone from killing you. Up close, there is nowhere to hide. The Gallente have their AR which is superior at close to mid range. Same with the minmatar CR. The Amarr has the ScR, which is obviously takes a bit more skill, but has no niche as it works well at CQC and range. What do the Caldari have? The worst CQC weapon already just got 4x harder to control, and the delay increased by 60%. Fox Gaden wrote: Balance decisions must consider both PC and Public Matches. In this case the RR may well have been balanced in PC, but for unskilled players in Public matches the RR worked just as well in CQC as any other weapon. Of course both PC and Pubs should be considered. Let's wait and see what the PC statistics show us. And we have no idea how well or not the RR truly worked in CQC in comparison to other guns. All we have are anecdotal evidence. A few of us have been calling for K/S statistics to include some range information so we can see what's really going on. I've not seen anything. Have you? Fox Gaden wrote: The RR was OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the least skilled hands. It was too easy for low to mid level players to get exceptional results with it. It was too easy to use. Again, simply wrong. It was the most popular weapon, not the best. If it was the best, it would have had a clear K/S advantage. The data shows it does not...despite having a range advantage that would lead towards higher K/S situation -- killing at range. Are you judging the RR by Saxon's videos? lol If the RR was so superior, why was it only on one of your fits? Fox Gaden wrote: So perhaps we need another word to use instead of Overpowered to describe this phenomena. (I detest the term GÇ£noob-tubGÇ¥ by the way.) I think the term you are looking for is overused or overpopular, not overpowered. Here's my take: The RR is popular because it was truly OP at the time it was introduced -- the time the entire playerbase got a respec. It is also popular for the same reason people like sniping -- it allows you to kill at range (albeit a much narrower range than the sniper rifle) where your targets can't effectively kill you. Find one of the many spots in this game that allows you to watch use your huge HP advantage to overcome it's already glaring weakness in CQC. But that scrub tactic doesn't work in PC, as anyone who has played any significant battles can attest to. Fox Gaden wrote: I think you are too focused on only the top 1% of players, and are not giving any consideration to the realities of balancing for the other 99%. Ratatti has to look at both. Perhaps. I've admitted that PC is my focus, and I play public matches to hone my (relatively lackluster) skills for PC. Shouldn't this game be balanced for both PC and Pubs? Even more to the point, shouldn't we evaluate both data before deciding what to do with a weapon?
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1949	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:20:00 - [67] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: As a Cartographer, I would love to see maps showing where all the kills occurred in a match. Heck, I would love to have the raw data and create a map like that. You could probably draw many insights from such a map. That would be a VERY interesting dataset to examine!
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1949	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:23:00 - [68] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Planetary conquest analysis up next week. Thank you! Any chance of distance data being introduced into the evaluation?
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics 4384	Posted - 2014.11.01 19:51:00 - [69] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: The Gallente have their AR which is superior at close to mid range. Same with the minmatar CR. The Amarr has the ScR, which is obviously takes a bit more skill, but has no niche as it works well at CQC and range. What do the Caldari have? The worst CQC weapon already just got 4x harder to control, and the delay increased by 60%. Well, the ScR's niche is as a skill-shot weapon but I digress. Leadfoot10 wrote: And we have no idea how well or not the RR truly worked in CQC in comparison to other guns. All we have is anecdotal evidence and a lot of differing viewpoitns. A few of us have been calling for K/S statistics to include some range information so we can see what's really going on. I've not seen anything. Have you? Excellent point, but... what number would we look for? How much of a dropoff should we say is acceptable? K/S down to 1? 1.5? 30% of kills coming in CQC? 20? What you, I, or Rattati think is appropriate efficacy is more important than the numbers themselves (unless they are obvious, like no dropoff at all or over 1/2 the kills coming inside 40m). Data are only as useful as the cut-points that are applied to it. Leadfoot10 wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: The RR was OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the least skilled hands. It was too easy for low to mid level players to get exceptional results with it. It was too easy to use. Again, simply wrong. It was the most popular weapon, not the best. If it was the best, it would have had a clear K/S advantage. The data shows it does not...despite having a range advantage that would lead towards higher K/S situation -- killing at range. That point is simply not as clear-cut as you think it is. Again, if a large number of players, which statistically would have to be lower skilled on the basis of sheer numbers alone, start to use a weapon, it by all logic should have had a K/S drop as the migration occurs. (Total kills, as you noted before, would obviously go up and be meaningless in terms of evaluating weapon performance) The contrary is much more true: If it was used by the majority of the players and had any K/S advantage, no matter how small, it would be de facto OP. What might be interesting is to see similar data for the old TAR (which nobody would argue was not OP), did it's K/D change as people migrated to it? Leadfoot10 wrote: And the most telling question of all: If the RR was so superior, why was it only on one of your fits? I'll wait for your answer to that one. That's obviously a lolargument. There's any number of reasons someone would not use the RR. - For one, Fox runs Sentinel a lot afaik, and no self-respecting vet would catch themselves dead running RR sentinel on the regular. - Myself, I have zero fits with the RR. The charge up time annoys me, and also as an LR user I consider the RR to be the spawn of satan himself and refuse to use it. More importantly, the Amarr logi suits I use are terribly gimped on PG and so the CR is a perfect fit because it basically uses up none. - Some people wouldn't for RP reasons or to take advantage of the bonus of a suit they like for other reasons. I can't use any more quotes, but your point about PC is totally valid. However, like you said, we do need to balance for both and we get into the same thing about how much of as disadvantage in PC would balance out an advantage in pubs? (The godfather of tactical logistics)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4806	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:00:00 - [70] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: The RR was OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the least skilled hands. It was too easy for low to mid level players to get exceptional results with it. It was too easy to use. Again, simply wrong. It was the most popular weapon, not the best. If it was the best, it would have had a clear K/S advantage. The data shows it does not...despite having a range advantage that would lead towards higher K/S situation -- killing at range. Are you judging the RR by Saxon's videos killing noobs on USA servers from his home in Europe in the morning USA time? Taking nothing away from Saxon, who's one of the most experienced and highly skilled players in this game, but lolz. And the most telling question of all: If the RR was so superior, why was it only on one of your fits? I'll wait for your answer to that one. I did not use a RR on my Sentinel fits for obvious reasons. I did not use a RR on my Minmatar Assault suit fits because it did not get the bonus. The only fit I use where the RR would be approapriate is my Min Logi fit which I use for placing uplinks in matches where no one else is doing it. I prefer the RR to the ACR, but I chose to skill into Minmatar Assault, so I am stuck using a ACR (as my old fingers donGÇÖt twitch fast enough to use a CR). I donGÇÖt judge the RR on what Saxon can do with it. I judge it on the fact that I can get more kills with it than with the ACR. Although, now that I have gotten more practice with the ACR I am getting a bit better with it. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4806	Posted - 2014.11.01 22:09:00 - [71] - Quote As far as PC balance, everyone says that RR are not used in CQC in PC matches, so this nerf should not effect PC right? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9922	Posted - 2014.11.02 01:58:00 - [72] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: Which may be exactly what was intended by this nerf. Make it more of a niche weapon and drive down usage. Fox Gaden wrote: The RR was OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the least skilled hands. It was too easy for low to mid level players to get exceptional results with it. It was too easy to use. Again, simply wrong. It was the most popular weapon, not the best. If it was the best, it would have had a clear K/S advantage. The data shows it does not...despite having a range advantage that would lead towards higher K/S situation -- killing at range. Fox Gaden wrote: So perhaps we need another word to use instead of Overpowered to describe this phenomena. (I detest the term GÇ£noob-tubGÇ¥ by the way.) I think the term you are looking for is overused or overpopular, not overpowered. Here's my take: The RR is popular because it was truly OP at the time it was introduced -- the time the entire playerbase got a respec. It is also popular for the same reason people like sniping -- it allows you to kill at range (albeit a much narrower range than the sniper rifle) where your targets can't effectively kill you -- and most maps have areas that allow you to do just that: Find one of the many spots in this game that allows you to watch the wide open approach areas. Or use a heavy's HP to overcome it's already glaring weakness in CQC. Luckily, that scrub tactic doesn't work in PC, as anyone who has played PCs recently can attest to, but even overwatch/approach camping works in PC, which is the niche that weapon fills in PC. Fox Gaden wrote: I think you are too focused on only the top 1% of players, and are not giving any consideration to the realities of balancing for the other 99%. Ratatti has to look at both. Perhaps. I've admitted that PC is my focus, and I play public matches to hone my (relatively lackluster) skills for PC. Shouldn't this game be balanced for both PC and Pubs? Even more to the point, shouldn't we evaluate both data sets before deciding what to do with a weapon? Leadfoot, I disagree with almost everything in this reply to Fox. Every time you said "wrong", I thought "right". How can you state that we are making the RR a "niche" weapon, when it almost has as many kills as the rest of the Rifles combined? The Rail Rifle is making all the other weapons "niche" weapons. How can you say repeatedly that the Rail does not have a clear K/S advantage, when it is the highest of all the Rifles? And twice that of many of them. The Rail Rifle is still used massively in PC and that was taken into account. It is not simply "overused" when it has the highest K/S as well. That doesnt make any sense. Even if it was OP when it was introduced, why is the Kill trend growing rapidly for the last 5 months? It literally means people are migrating to it, not stuck with a decision made around 1.8. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Al the destroyer NECROM0NGERS 198	Posted - 2014.11.02 02:05:00 - [73] - Quote The RR is still OP I suck and can get 20 kills in a match lol hip fire fix lol just switch to an SMG
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 633	Posted - 2014.11.02 08:11:00 - [74] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot10 wrote: Which may be exactly what was intended by this nerf. Make it more of a niche weapon and drive down usage. Fox Gaden wrote: The RR was OP in the sense that it was the best weapon in the least skilled hands. It was too easy for low to mid level players to get exceptional results with it. It was too easy to use. Again, simply wrong. It was the most popular weapon, not the best. If it was the best, it would have had a clear K/S advantage. The data shows it does not...despite having a range advantage that would lead towards higher K/S situation -- killing at range. Fox Gaden wrote: So perhaps we need another word to use instead of Overpowered to describe this phenomena. (I detest the term GÇ£noob-tubGÇ¥ by the way.) I think the term you are looking for is overused or overpopular, not overpowered. Here's my take: The RR is popular because it was truly OP at the time it was introduced -- the time the entire playerbase got a respec. It is also popular for the same reason people like sniping -- it allows you to kill at range (albeit a much narrower range than the sniper rifle) where your targets can't effectively kill you -- and most maps have areas that allow you to do just that: Find one of the many spots in this game that allows you to watch the wide open approach areas. Or use a heavy's HP to overcome it's already glaring weakness in CQC. Luckily, that scrub tactic doesn't work in PC, as anyone who has played PCs recently can attest to, but even overwatch/approach camping works in PC, which is the niche that weapon fills in PC. Fox Gaden wrote: I think you are too focused on only the top 1% of players, and are not giving any consideration to the realities of balancing for the other 99%. Ratatti has to look at both. Perhaps. I've admitted that PC is my focus, and I play public matches to hone my (relatively lackluster) skills for PC. Shouldn't this game be balanced for both PC and Pubs? Even more to the point, shouldn't we evaluate both data sets before deciding what to do with a weapon? Leadfoot, I disagree with almost everything in this reply to Fox. Every time you said "wrong", I thought "right". How can you state that we are making the RR a "niche" weapon, when it almost has as many kills as the rest of the Rifles combined? The Rail Rifle is making all the other weapons "niche" weapons. How can you say repeatedly that the Rail does not have a clear K/S advantage, when it is the highest of all the Rifles? And twice that of many of them. The Rail Rifle is still used to kill massively in PC and that was taken into account. It is not simply "overused" when it has the highest K/S as well. That doesnt make any sense. Even if it was OP when it was introduced, why is the Kill trend growing rapidly for the last 5 months? It literally means people are migrating to it, not stuck with a decision made around 1.8. Rattati, let say, that we had an empty map with flat terrain (no cover at all). both teams spawn 400m from each other. one team is using assault rifles, and combat rifles. the other team is using rail rifles, and scrambler rifles. which team do you think would win an ambush? after the match ends, the teams are allowed to select new weapons. which weapon do you think will be selected after the first battle? at this point you should be considering poor map design as the problem for RR popularity. More cover, increased broken lines of sight, and you make long range weapon ineffective, and close range weapons more preferred. There is a reason why the RR is popular and its not because its great at CQC.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound RISE of LEGION 2102	Posted - 2014.11.02 08:52:00 - [75] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Leadfoot, I disagree with almost everything in this reply to Fox. Every time you said "wrong", I thought "right". How can you state that we are making the RR a "niche" weapon, when it almost has as many kills as the rest of the Rifles combined? The Rail Rifle is making all the other weapons "niche" weapons. How can you say repeatedly that the Rail does not have a clear K/S advantage, when it is the highest of all the Rifles? And twice that of many of them. The Rail Rifle is still used to kill massively in PC and that was taken into account. It is not simply "overused" when it has the highest K/S as well. That doesnt make any sense. Even if it was OP when it was introduced, why is the Kill trend growing rapidly for the last 5 months? It literally means people are migrating to it, not stuck with a decision made around 1.8. I both agree and disagree with your assessment. A few points. 1. Not only is it the longest range weapon, but it is also armor damaging. Honest question: where do armor plates sit in number of total purchases? I predict they are among the most, if not THE most popular module. My PC fits are nearly all armor stacked to some degree or another, and the RR helps chew through that. Take a look at the 2nd most popular rifle, the CR. Armor damaging as well. 2. Automatic weapons will always be good in CQC barring some insane measures to counter this, such as the ridiculous kick on the RR currently. What we need to do is reduce its rate of fire while upping its per-hit damage to keep it at its current DPS. I can run numbers and make a spreadsheet if you're interested (especially now that I know how to share them, thanks for showing me that! ) Here's the basic gist of it: the faster your weapon shoots, and the lower damage each individual bullet does, the less a given amount of missed shots matters to overall DPS. For example, 3 missed shots with the HMG means far less DPS wasted than 3 missed shots with the sniper rifle. So by reducing the ROF, we make each missed shot cut into the applied DPS that much more, because each shot is worth more in terms of total damage applied to the target. For a closer comparison, take the bolt pistol versus the AR. If you miss 3 shots with the bolt pistol, you just lost 75% of the total damage in your magazine, whereas 3 shots missed from the AR accounts for 5% of the total damage in the magazine. So if we make the RR function like the bolt pistol (very high damage, very low ROF) then we can make it more effective at range while being not so good at CQC. Of course, the bolt pistol was considered OP for quite some time. This is because the ROF was not low enough to balance the high alpha damage it had. We should take this approach with the RR. The RR in this light will shoot somewhat faster than the bolt pistol, while having less alpha damage. In this way, we achieve several things. A. RR will behave as rail tech should. In my mind, only the magsec should be automatic; everything else should function like the bolt pistol or sniper rifles. B. We reduce its CQC effectiveness while still giving it power at range. It should take far fewer hits to kill a target with the RR than the AR does, but the AR should put out enough damage to kill before the RR can. We can also give it a particularly wide dispersion to reduce its CQC even further. I don't want Delta bolt pistol 2.0, I want a rifle that functions like the Caldari would have it: very accurate, very long range, very hard hitting, very slow firing. Caldari want every shot to count, and the current RR does not follow that philosophy. In all, the RR's basic design means its going to be good in CQC; we need to change its basic function instead of doing radical nerfs like the kick nerf that only annoy the long-time users. Proof that Rattati/CCP do listen to the playerbase.
Apothecary Za'ki Biomass Positive 1526	Posted - 2014.11.02 09:59:00 - [76] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I use a Rail Rifle on my Drop Uplink Logi fit, so I decided to run a few ambush matches with this fit to see what all the whining was about. What the Fox Says: If you skilled into the Rail Rifle because you felt it was the best choice for CQC before, then you were taking advantage of a flaw in the game and you should feel bad. you mean like 50% or more of the playerbase who were chasing that FOTM magic dragon [[LogiBro ADV/PRO]] [[Level 1 Forum Warrior]] [[Level 2 Forum Pariah]]
medomai grey WarRavens Capital Punishment. 1077	Posted - 2014.11.02 10:55:00 - [77] - Quote Finally got around to testing the hip-fire for RR. The hip-fire kick is absurdly high. The rifle did need changes to stop it from out performing other machine gun rifles, but that kick increase was overkill. How to balance cloaks.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1955	Posted - 2014.11.02 17:17:00 - [78] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: How can you state that we are making the RR a "niche" weapon, when it almost has as many kills as the rest of the Rifles combined? The Rail Rifle is making all the other weapons "niche" weapons. My use of the term niche weapon was in comparison to the niche weapon that the LR is -- deadly at range but practically useless up close. CCP Rattati wrote: How can you say repeatedly that the Rail does not have a clear K/S advantage, when it is the highest of all the Rifles? And twice that of many of them. ... It is not simply "overused" when it has the highest K/S as well. That doesnt make any sense. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong color in the table -- and I must admit I was having trouble tracking the different rifles with similar colors in the graph. I'll have another look at it: [img]http://puu.sh/cuFcS/5936d88aa4.jpg[/img] CCP Rattati wrote: The Rail Rifle is still used to kill massively in PC and that was taken into account. All I have in this regard is my experience playing them virtually every night which apparently disagrees with your data. From where I sit, I see many more HMG, Shotgun, and CR deaths (although the CR use has gone down recently replaced with AR or shotguns, mostly). Our team rarely uses a RR, and when we do, it's in very specific situations (up high or watching avenues of approach) as to overcome its CQC disadvantages and, relatively speaking, rare. But again, that might just be my skewed perspective, and admittedly so. CCP Rattati wrote: Even if it was OP when it was introduced, why is the Kill trend growing rapidly for the last 5 months? It literally means people are migrating to it, not stuck with a decision made around 1.8. I can make out that graph, and I don't see kill trends growing rapidly. I see a slow steady rise here: [img]http://puu.sh/cuGL5/859c6bf010.jpg[/img] And I note the ARR's usage being rather consistently low. That doesn't change the RR's clear overuse where it accounts for 40% of the kills.
Leadfoot10 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1955	Posted - 2014.11.02 18:02:00 - [79] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Rattati, let say, that we had an empty map with flat terrain (no cover at all). both teams spawn 400m from each other. one team is using assault rifles, and combat rifles. the other team is using rail rifles, and scrambler rifles. which team do you think would win an ambush? after the match ends, the teams are allowed to select new weapons. which weapon do you think will be selected after the first battle? at this point you should be considering poor map design as the problem for RR popularity. More cover, increased broken lines of sight, and you make long range weapon ineffective, and close range weapons more preferred. There is a reason why the RR is popular and its not because its great at CQC. Although I wouldn't use the words "poor map design", the logic above makes a lot of sense to me. When I use the RR/ARR it's in very specific situations where the map sets up for it. For instance, guarding the approach to one of the sockets in fractured road (the zig zag road map) or the outside points of the bridge map, or on the approach to any city socket, or in practically every map at the exit to the redline (for all those times the other team finds themselves redlined) -- areas with wide open kill zones in the perfect range for the RR user to own it up. And the change to it's CQC handling it seems to me to have done nothing to the RR/ARR effectiveness in these situations, except make them more vulnerable up close. And if it's the map design aiding this usage profile, will changing the CQC handing of this gun have the desired effect? If so, which of the rifles will pick up the slack in this regard? We shall see.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 633	Posted - 2014.11.03 01:12:00 - [80] - Quote Leadfoot10 wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: Rattati, let say, that we had an empty map with flat terrain (no cover at all). both teams spawn 400m from each other. one team is using assault rifles, and combat rifles. the other team is using rail rifles, and scrambler rifles. which team do you think would win an ambush? after the match ends, the teams are allowed to select new weapons. which weapon do you think will be selected after the first battle? at this point you should be considering poor map design as the problem for RR popularity. More cover, increased broken lines of sight, and you make long range weapon ineffective, and close range weapons more preferred. There is a reason why the RR is popular and its not because its great at CQC. Although I wouldn't use the words "poor map design", the logic above makes a lot of sense to me. When I use the RR/ARR it's in very specific situations where the map sets up for it. For instance, guarding the approach to one of the sockets in fractured road (the zig zag road map) or the outside points of the bridge map, or on the approach to any city socket, or in practically every map at the exit to the redline (for all those times the other team finds themselves redlined) -- areas with wide open kill zones in the perfect range for the RR user to own it up. And the change to it's CQC handling it seems to me to have done nothing to the RR/ARR effectiveness in these situations, except make them more vulnerable up close. And if it's the map design aiding this usage profile, will changing the CQC handing of this gun have the desired effect? If so, which of the rifles will pick up the slack in this regard? We shall see. limit open ares to 30m or less and the RR goes away. provide more over head cover as well to protect from roof top campers. RR users want to be around 70m away or more. if theyre stuck fighting at 30m all the time they wont have a situation where a long range weapon is needed EDIT: i say 30m because most sidearms and all AR's and CR's are effective at these ranges. you could go with 40m or even 50m though. if you desgin the map for the weapons you want used on it, then people will eventually start using them on those maps, and usage will go up.

DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 636	Posted - 2014.11.03 01:23:00 - [81] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: As a Cartographer, I would love to see maps showing where all the kills occurred in a match. Heck, I would love to have the raw data and create a map like that. You could probably draw many insights from such a map. record the match and play it back viewed from the map screen with all player visible from both teams. youd know everything then, BUT we dont have that tool.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4809	Posted - 2014.11.03 19:09:00 - [82] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: Rattati, let say, that we had an empty map with flat terrain (no cover at all). both teams spawn 400m from each other. one team is using assault rifles, and combat rifles. the other team is using rail rifles, and scrambler rifles. which team do you think would win an ambush? after the match ends, the teams are allowed to select new weapons. which weapon do you think will be selected after the first battle? at this point you should be considering poor map design as the problem for RR popularity. More cover, increased broken lines of sight, and you make long range weapon ineffective, and close range weapons more preferred. There is a reason why the RR is popular and its not because its great at CQC. There are actually two reasons. 1)It is the best long range Infantry Rifle, and one of the best mid Rang. 2)It has no significant drawbacks. Reducing its effectiveness in CQC does not change the fact that it is the best at what it does well, but it does give the RR a drawback. That is progress in my book. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4809	Posted - 2014.11.03 19:24:00 - [83] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: 2. Automatic weapons will always be good in CQC barring some insane measures to counter this, such as the ridiculous kick on the RR currently. What we need to do is reduce its rate of fire while upping its per-hit damage to keep it at its current DPS. I can run numbers and make a spreadsheet if you're interested (especially now that I know how to share them, thanks for showing me that! ) That is an interesting approach. Although rather than experimenting further with the RR, why donGÇÖt we bring this version in as the Breach variant? It could be setup so the first shot just has a charge time, while subsequent rounds have a load+charge time so you donGÇÖt have to wait so long for the first shot. Once the first shot goes off a player experienced with the weapon will have a feel for how long before the next round fires and can use that time to adjust their aim. It would feel a bit like the Burst HMG were you adjust your aim between bursts. I like it! If it works as you suggest, then this version could be given a greatly reduced kick. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4809	Posted - 2014.11.03 19:47:00 - [84] - Quote I do think the ARR should be better in CQC than the RR, as it not only has a slightly shorter range, but also has iron sites rather than a Scope, which makes it less effective as a ranged weapon. I don't have the RR Operations skill level to test it, but I would hope that the kick on the ARR is not as bad as on the RR. If it is, I would be in favor of reducing the kick on the ARR. I also think that the Rifle variantGÇÖs main purpose is to provide someone who has skilled heavily into a specific type of Rifle some options on maps which do not favor the weapon they have skilled into. For this reason I would like to know: is it possible to release Standard/Basic versions of the variants that still have the higher Optimization skill prerequisite? The variants should definitely require you to skill into the weapon to get access to, but it would be nice if you were not forced to pay for an Advanced weapon when you want to use a Rifle variant. For example, a player skilled into RR Operations enough to use the ARR should have access to a cost effective tier of ARR. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 4402	Posted - 2014.11.03 19:49:00 - [85] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I do think the ARR should be better in CQC than the RR, as it not only has a slightly shorter range, but also has iron sites rather than a Scope You just sold me on the ARR right there. I HATE the scopes in DUST EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 4809	Posted - 2014.11.03 19:55:00 - [86] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: I do think the ARR should be better in CQC than the RR, as it not only has a slightly shorter range, but also has iron sites rather than a Scope You just sold me on the ARR right there. I HATE the scopes in DUST I, on the other hand, am a great lover of The Dot! Sniper Rifle, RR, HMGGÇª I love the Dot. Heck I would use the CR on my Minmatar Assault Suit if I could twitch my finger fast enough to make it effective. (I am stuck with the ACR and itGÇÖs iron sites, which it is taking me quite a while to get used to.) Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Jack the Rlpper Fearless Infinity 14	Posted - 2014.11.21 17:33:00 - [87] - Quote Way off subject but since a dev seems to keep posting here maybe ill get some help why is it that in the last week all 7 skill respecs ive bought and used i get dc'd after skilling to what i want come back on and have this god forsaken cal assualt maxed rr thing hm why does my game keep glitching and giving something totally different? ive wrote and submitted atleast 3 tickets but no response after 2 days so i make a new one still no help i would like my $140.00 worth of aur refunded so i can actually get what i want to skill into and not have had my money wasted...


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.