DUST Search - Scrambler Rife

LUGMOS wrote:

Imp Smash wrote:

Compare the current long range abilities of the RR to the SCR (since these are the two weapons you are comparing), the mid range, short range, and CQC abilities. Then you may go from (Waaaaahhhh!) to (insert excellent point followed by consensus and meaningful change here)

Are you ******* kidding me? Can you not read?

It may not be in the OP, but I explain it farther in the thread, if you so care about balance, then you should go ahead and read the entirety of the thread.

But just for you, here I go:

Rail Rifle vs ScR: Assuming Normal Variant

The ScR has a tighter field of dispersion than the Scrambler Rifle. This already means more accuracy. On top of that, the ScR has relatively little to no kick, so the reticle remains constant, even in hipfire. The Rail Rifle, on the other hand, has much kick and recoil, more so than the ScR, even in ADS.

That is all you get in this post, but even just with this, a reduction to CQC effectivity is just, be it more dispersion, or more hipfire kick, or as suggested, a mere efficiency penalty up close.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 637	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:25:00 - [1] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Protocake JR wrote: Oh wow, this thread again. Lol, cept this time it has actual rational. OP posts about rational OP neglects to include all facts about SCR in his rational context lost
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 638	Posted - 2015.02.06 02:52:00 - [2] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Imp Smash wrote: LUGMOS wrote: Protocake JR wrote: Oh wow, this thread again. Lol, cept this time it has actual rational. OP posts about rational OP neglects to include all facts about SCR in his rational context lost Do you think rifles should be more or less confined to certain ranges? As far as relative power goes yes. If the SCR is super freaking good at CQC while other long range rifles are not then yes I agree it should not be. However, no evidence has been presented to say that this is the case. No rationale was given that this is the case. The topic was discussed incompletely -- with many parts completely left out. So, at least for now, y'all are just bitching like a 5 year old who skinned their knee. Waaaahhhh! Compare the current long range abilities of the RR to the SCR (since these are the two weapons you are comparing), the mid range, short range, and CQC abilities. Then you may go from (Waaaaahhhh!) to (insert excellent point followed by consensus and meaningful change here) I await your explanation.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 638	Posted - 2015.02.06 03:21:00 - [3] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Imp Smash wrote: Compare the current long range abilities of the RR to the SCR (since these are the two weapons you are comparing), the mid range, short range, and CQC abilities. Then you may go from (Waaaaahhhh!) to (insert excellent point followed by consensus and meaningful change here) Are you ***** kidding me? Can you not read? It may not be in the OP, but I explain it farther in the thread, if you so care about balance, then you should go ahead and read the entirety of the thread. But just for you, here I go: Rail Rifle vs ScR: Assuming Normal Variant The ScR has a tighter field of dispersion than the Scrambler Rifle. This already means more accuracy. On top of that, the ScR has relatively little to no kick, so the reticle remains constant, even in hipfire. The Rail Rifle, on the other hand, has much kick and recoil, more so than the ScR, even in ADS. That is all you get in this post, but even just with this, a reduction to CQC effectivity is just, be it more dispersion, or more hipfire kick, or as suggested, a mere efficiency penalty up close. No, I am not "***** kidding" you as you say. The thread has twisted and turned -- but all I see are people making assertions and no logic or explanation backing it up. 'this gun is good here. this one sucks' is just an opinion. One supported by, at best, anecdotal evidence (assuming there is any support for said assertion at ALL.) Here is an example of it: (mid edit.)
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 644	Posted - 2015.02.07 00:13:00 - [4] - Quote Well, I don't see the flaw in comparing the laser to the RR and SCR either. The sniper yes. The sway mechanic makes the comparison completely ridiculous But I would find the laser not completely unreasonable for comparison. Let's think about it shall we? It's a rifle that is limited by overheat instead of recoil/dispersion. It has a huge penalty in that it does little to no damage at mid/close to cqc range -- but that penalty is offset by the fact that it has the perk of doing more damage as you use it. The close you are to overheat the more effective. That is risk vs reward and creates a higher skill ceiling. But that's the thing -- the rifle has the close range damage and incentives to run close to overheat penalties due to the combination of long range, increased damage over time, and no recoil/dispersion. (also, it lacks Aim Assist) The Scrambler is a rifle like the RR is a rifle. And the RR, while less accurate in CQC than at long range, still can, in skilled hands, kill while skipping in the rain. Just like the scrambler. It is ridiculous to pretend that it doesn't as we all see it all the time. That would be like someone saying SCR sucks at CQC. It doesn't. It's just not as good as at range. If you want to have fair, unbiased, honest, useful opinions and have constructive discussion -- you must admit the full weaknesses and strengths of both sides of the argument. In this case a comparison of the RR to the SCR. Don't pretend the SCR is a CQC monster and the RR isn't. It immediately invalidates any reasonable point y'all might have had by being strait up bullshit. So, let me ask you this, if you guys TRULY wanted to make the two rifles comparable -- would you accept the RR AND SCR having a damage penalty at close range? Massive reduction in recoil/dispersion on the RR? Increased spool up time? Because that would make the rifles counter balanced and function similarly. The only difference being the RR can shoot forever now, and the SCR having to stop to cooldown -- but the RR taking a good 1.5-2 sec to start shooting in the first place. So SCR being a front end weapon and the RR being a back end. Oh, the RR would have to take a range nerf to match the SCR. Almost forgot about that. However, if you think that would break the RR and make it useless -- then you might want to reconsider the scrambler hate. Because, at its core, the argument I am seeing from OP and supporters is that close range weapons should be overwhelmingly superior to long range weapons up close because they short range weapons simply cannot function at long range. And long range weapons should be made to not function at close range because they work at a range that short weapons simply don't. Hence the laser rifle comparison ya'll made earlier. And that is, in fact, a reasonable fair argument. But to apply this to 1 long range gun and not ALL the guns is biased. If you want the SCR to be laser rifle useless at CQC, then you have to nerf the LONGER ranged RR to match it. (and then buff the long range capabilities of the RR by giving it less recoil.) Then the CR will have to match it so it would have to be less effective too in CQC. And the TaR/BaR. Do you see the slippery slope here? So instead of the above CCP says -- we will make the long range rifles viable in CQC -- just not as good as the close range counterparts. That's why you can kill someone at 10 meters with a Scr. That's why you can kill someone at 10 meters with a RR. That's why you can still kill someone with a CR at 10 meters. Again -- you are getting slaughtered by Scramblers due to turbo controllers breaking two of the gun's limiting mechanics.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 650	Posted - 2015.02.07 01:35:00 - [5] - Quote LUGMOS wrote: Imp Smash wrote: Good points and whatnot Alright, I think you have me beat. I still won't agree with the ScR being as good as it is in CQC though, but I can see the slippery slope that could happen. One thing is for sure, the (regular) RR is much worse than the ScR in close range, but I guess that's fine because of the heat mechanic, if that makes sense. Well, bolded part alone I would disagree with myself and agree with you actually. I agree with your original assertion that the Long range rifles should not be as good up close as the close range rifles. And I agree that if the SCR is better than the RR at close range then the SCR would need to be nerfed. Essentially I don't know if the RR is worse than the SCR. Currently I use neither, all I know is they both kill me at a variety of ranges. Sometimes heads up, when I see the other guy, and we start fighting time. I feel they both kill me approximately equally as fast too. In the sense that the RR may be worse than the ScR at CQC you may be right. And if you are, and if there are no other balancing components then I would agree that the ScR would need a CqC nerf to more closely match the RR. I would not want a damage fall off. A dispersion nerf (another one I guess?) would be better. That's just my opinion though.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 659	Posted - 2015.02.09 00:01:00 - [6] - Quote I am seeing some good an reasonable discussion here. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy. We do have to consider Mod controllers in this though. I have picked up a modded controller and tried it out with the scrambler, tac AR, and ACR. And it was broken broken broken. This was before ScR RoF nerf and the BurstAR buff though. Regardless, now I still poke my head around a corner and lose 200 shields and 200 armor sometimes in less than half a second (no exaggeration) and I can see the ScR bolts overlapping eachother. So I know that massive damage hit was a result of a modded controller. All that aside though -- I read a very interesting point. The ScR should not, in any sense, be better when hip firing than the ARs. That's just silly. I really would like a blue tag to come in here and discuss the dispersion and recoil on hip fire. But seeing as we are on page 4 and there is a lot of 'less than useful posting' in the middle of this thread they are probably avoiding going in this far. Still, I can't imagine people hip firing the scrambler 25 meters out. If they are then there is a problem there. I don't have scramblers or ARs. can someone with a capture device do some gunfire spread testing on a wall and put up some pictures?