|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8709
   |
Posted - 2015.02.14 07:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Pagl1u M wrote:We need the kills/spawn ratio of hmg It's too damn high, ranking with top tier rifles. I am working on Hotfix Echo, where the plan is to rein in the range, and nothing else. They are too effective in "rifle" range
The range, huh..? Couldn't be that exclusion from the 10% damage reduction to all weaponry, bar the HMG, back in 1.7/1.8..?
What would reducing the range do other than make it slightly less effective at "rifle" range (excluded the Assault Rifle who is always going to have to compete with the HMG). Come on, give me a reason to want to use the AR over the HMG. 5-10m of extra range doesn't do jack when the DPS on the HMG makes up for that.
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8709
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 07:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Ripley Riley wrote:Atiim wrote:Your entire premise is flawed because usage does not equate to power. If useage was the only data he was examining, then yes, you would be right. In the OP he clearly states... CCP Rattati wrote:The obvious lesson is that ASCR, TAR and Burst AR are not good enough, and those three also have the lowest Kills/Spawn ratio (similar to KDR ratio), so low usage and low efficiency indicates "not good enough" Rattati is also monitoring each weapon's Kills/Spawn: their killing efficiency. Still a flawed premise. Kills per Spawn data is influenced by a variety of factors beyond the power of a weapon, such as how skilled the players using a weapon is, how skilled the players fighting against the weapon are, the environment the weapon is being used in, the HP type the weapon's being used against, etc. As such, attempting to balance anything around KSR without assessing why an item has an abnormal KSR foolish, and won't do anything besides making a balanced weapon OP or UP. CCP Rattati wrote:
Ask the players, they don't choose those weapons, and when they do, they perform worse with them than other weapons.
Which means that the players using the weapons are terrible, hence why they perform so poorly with variants that are superior to the ones which your data ironically claims are overpowered. Though besides usage and KSR (which are both flawed methods of determining a weapon's power), is there any actual reason as to why the Burst and Tactical ARs need a buff?
I use the TAR frequently. Have a few videos posted where I use it. It's a very niche weapon that needs the correct environment. Scrambler Rifle is better and it's probably not surprising to anyone that I started using it in place of my TAR. TAR can't make up for the ability to charge shot, longer range, etc. I've had a long drawn out argument about this in another thread.
If you want the TAR to be more competitive, needs to have something that'll compete with the Scrambler Rifle - which won't happen because the Scrambler rifle is just outright better. TAR would need excruciatingly high alpha damage to make up for a lack of charge, range, etc. No-one will allow that for fear of it being OP.
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
Aeon Amadi
Chimera Core
8712
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 14:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
I use the TAR frequently. Have a few videos posted where I use it. It's a very niche weapon that needs the correct environment. Scrambler Rifle is better and it's probably not surprising to anyone that I started using it in place of my TAR. TAR can't make up for the ability to charge shot, longer range, etc. I've had a long drawn out argument about this in another thread.
If you want the TAR to be more competitive, needs to have something that'll compete with the Scrambler Rifle - which won't happen because the Scrambler rifle is just outright better. TAR would need excruciatingly high alpha damage to make up for a lack of charge, range, etc. No-one will allow that for fear of it being OP.
The TAR already has dreadfully high alpha damage. With damage mods it's a nightmare. Some folks just haven't rediscovered it yet. I respect the Scrambler Rifle, but the TAR was meant to imitate, not surpass it. It's in a good spot. Just some extra range. Give it a some reach, and it'll be used more. At the moment, the TAR has better zoom than the scrambler rifle, but less range. Let it rival the scrambler rifle's range, and I guarantee you will see increased usage. But damage buffs would put it over the edge.
Oh lord, here we go with the whole "it's an imitator and shouldn't be competitive against it because it's not the real thing".
Seriously, I really do hate that argument, it's archaic and out-dated. With that logic, all the Assault variants should pale in comparison to the Assault Rifle but they don't. In some cases, in particular the ARR, they're even better. It's -always- been that way.
The constant misconception that a weapon has to be worse than a similar weapon just because of some concept a CCP Dev put down two years ago shouldn't even be a thing anymore. If anything we should have evolved from that with racial takes on the variations including their own unique flare to make the weapon competitive; and by that logic the TAR would have -much- higher damage than the Scrambler Rifle while simultaneously having lower range.
The question you have to ask: "What is the functionality of this weapon if it is an imitator that isn't competitive with the other weapon?"
Functionless gameplay is a waste of time. If your idea doesn't serve a purpose, providing something new and unique that we don't already have, then it doesn't need to be implemented because we already have that. Making something "kinda similar but not as powerful because #reasons" is just annoying, adds repetition, and punishes players for making the wrong choices.
Have a suggestion for the Planetary Services Department?
Founder of AIV
|
|
|
| |
|