Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cat Merc
Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback
15197
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 00:31:00 -
[31] - Quote
Could we just make the dispersion reduction stronger? 25% isn't much when the rifle is already accurate and also has a skill that increases accuracy by 25%.
Remember, this bonus is competing against 25% higher clip size and 25% heat reduction. 25% dispersion reduction in comparison sounds lol.
Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan!
Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
7513
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 01:38:00 -
[32] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Making a suit bonus for a single weapon variant is kinda dumb. Better solution would be to slightly reduce recoil on the TAR directly.
Since in its own right it should be equivalent to the vanilla scram The suit bonus doesnt just apply to the AR, it also affects the Shotgun and Ion Pistol. The Ion Pistol desperately needs it because the faster you fire the more dispersion you get, the more recoil is harder to control, the more it overheats and the less amount of shots you can fire before overheating; better hit what you're shooting at.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
Soul Cairn
Fatal Absolution
35
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 02:14:00 -
[33] - Quote
Cat Merc wrote:Could we just make the dispersion reduction stronger? 25% isn't much when the rifle is already accurate and also has a skill that increases accuracy by 25%.
Remember, this bonus is competing against 25% higher clip size and 25% heat reduction. 25% dispersion reduction in comparison sounds lol. How do you think I feel about reload speed? I don't want damned reload speed!
Born Ammatar, Caldari at heart.
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6751
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 12:43:00 -
[34] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Atiim wrote:Yes we do, usage statistics does not change nor refute the fact that the bonus does not have any meaningful effect, (which means that it's not working as intended), therefore arguments involving its usage are irrelevant. Usage is always relevant. And it isn't like you to dismiss quality data, Atiim. When 5 HAVs per side rolled around each-and-every match following 1.7, usage rates mattered very much to you. When Scouts accounted for over 50% of units in combat each-and-every match following 1.8, usage rates mattered very much to you. How is that suddenly "arguments involving usage are irrelevant"? If it were Tanks instead of Assaults outselling all else by nearly 2:1, you'd be allover these graphs and relentless in your demands for nerfs. The HAV/ADS usage rates weren't at all what concerned me, what concerned me was the fact that they were overpowered. If HAV usage was to skyrocket at this very moment, I'd be assessing their power to determine why they're skyrocketing and then determine whether or not action needs to be taken. None of my arguments as to why the HAV (or any item) needed to be nerfed involved the fact that they were overused, and everything to do with the fact that they were incapable of being destroyed when operated competently (read: invulnerable) without injecting an impractical/imbalanced amount of AVers to destroy them. Usage by itself isn't "quality data", as it doesn't display nor determine factors which actually show the power of an item. In this case it's completely irrelevant because the argument of "they are the most widely used Dropsuits" does not offer a refutation, nor rebuttal to the subject at hand. That aside, there are currently four proven and irrefutable facts: 1. The bonuses are neither significant nor practical 2. The bonuses fail to provide a significant advantage over other roles/classes. 3. Dropsuit bonuses are intended to be both significant and practical. 4. Dropsuit bonuses are intended to provide a significant advantage over other roles/classes. Given how my (and hopefully everyone's) goal is for all items to work as they were intended (balanced), the only rational and objective course of action would be to pursue a change to their bonus so that it meets the criteria of facts 3 and 4. No matter how we package it, we're still trying to buff two of the best suits in the game here. If the goal is class parity, I can appreciate that. If MN and AM Assault are that much better than GA and CA Assault, then we should tune GA and CA Assault bonuses, and immediately rebalance the Assault class against other roles. This could be accomplished by removing 1 slot or reducing speed and/or HP. This course would meet all of your criteria while pushing the Assault Class toward balance rather than further away from it.
Atiim wrote: Though I must ask, if we were back before Hotfix Delta and the Caldari Scout's bonus was -5% Sniper Rifle Dispersion per Level, would you pursue a change to its bonus?
The CalScout was at its peak in through HF Bravo. Had it and the GalScout had useless bonuses, and were still the Top 2 most popular suits, I'd have proposed they be nerfed rather than proposed they get better bonuses. There's no way I'd ask to buff an OP suit; who does that?
most
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Vesta Opalus
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:01:00 -
[35] - Quote
DeadlyAztec11 wrote:I'm all for improving the current bonus.
Oh, by the by, IT'S CALLED THE ASSAULT RIFLE!
Assault Rifle as a name is a holdover from not having any other rifles.
These days "Assault" is a variant of rifle that shoots out a bunch of bullets without having to lift the trigger, like the Assault Scrambler Rifle or Assault Rail Rifle.
All Gallente rifles need to be renamed "Plasma Rifle", devs are just being lazy. |
Vesta Opalus
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION
434
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 21:57:00 -
[36] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:noob cavman wrote:So your comparing when tanks were op and when we scouts were op to a bonus that makes very little difference to the actual weapons it relates to...
Not at all. Read the previous post. Atiim claimed that we should ignore usage rates; I'm disagreeing. When scouts were OP, their usage rates looked alot like current Assault rates. Assaults may or may not be OP, but they certainly aren't UP. Should they gift themselves with a net gain, it will likely lead to significant imbalance. Buffing items which aren't in need of a buff never ends well. If we intend to buff for the sake of buffing, we should bank on the likelihood of nerfs to follow. Rattati won't ignore a massive (and widening) gap in top-performer usage rates.
Plasma Rifle usage rates are very heavily weighted because new players are using them on all their starter fits.
With that said, Ive just started skilling into the Gal Assault and Im using various Gal weaponry and the Assault Plasma rifle is actually really damn good (as long as you arent trying to snipe with it). I think its supposed to be this way since its the lowest range rifle, but who knows. I dont know the data enough to really say. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6760
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:07:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:[Plasma Rifle usage rates are very heavily weighted because new players are using them on all their starter fits.
Correct, which explains why Plasma Rifle usage has always been higher than other weapons. Now compare that with Assault usage, which only a few months ago was very low and is suddenly and very high. A similar pattern (albeit more magnified) was observed with Scouts following 1.8.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Fizzer XCIV
Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire
2398
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:21:00 -
[38] - Quote
ITT: Scout cry that they aren't the best killy-suits anymore and that the primary slayer role has been given to Assaults, which is working as intended.
Home at Last <3
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6761
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:29:00 -
[39] - Quote
Fizzer XCIV wrote:ITT: Scout cry that they aren't the best killy-suits anymore and that the primary slayer role has been given to Assaults, which is working as intended.
Here's a much more likely narrative:
When Scouts were OP, they proposed to nerf themselves. Now that Assaults OP, they propose to buff themselves.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Fizzer XCIV
Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire
2398
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 22:44:00 -
[40] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Fizzer XCIV wrote:ITT: Scout cry that they aren't the best killy-suits anymore and that the primary slayer role has been given to Assaults, which is working as intended. Here's a much more likely narrative: When Scouts were OP, they proposed to nerf themselves. Now that Assaults OP, they propose to buff themselves.
No. First of all, Assaults aren't OP. More like..
"Assault are now happy that they are the primary slayers, as they should be, and they are now striving for racial balance for themselves, but definitely don't want to pass the reigns back to Scouts."
"Some scouts are buttmad that the actual role of Scouting isn't slaying, but rather, recon. They yearn for the days of shotguns controlling the battlefield to return once more, and are willing to cry for Assault nerfs to get their wish, as they believe that they should be able to outslay Assaults."
Home at Last <3
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6761
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 23:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
Fizzer XCIV wrote: First of all, Assaults aren't OP.
Neither you nor I can make that call definitively. We can monitor usage rates, make in game observations, take note of what the FoTM-chasers and Nyain San are running. But at the end of the day, you and I can do little more than observe and opine.
Fizzer XCIV wrote: "Assault are now happy that they are the primary slayers, as they should be, and they are now striving for racial balance for themselves, but definitely don't want to pass the reigns back to Scouts."
I can see GA/CA Assaults looking enviously at the more demonstrably overpowered MN (and possibly AM) Assault. I can see how they might think it a good idea to buff one side of the equation rather than nerf the other to achieve role parity. Role parity is a noble goal, but so is balance. If Assaults are in fact out-of-balance, then buffing them cannot be a good idea.
Fizzer XCIV wrote: "Some scouts are buttmad that the actual role of Scouting isn't slaying, but rather, recon. They yearn for the days of shotguns controlling the battlefield to return once more, and are willing to cry for Assault nerfs to get their wish, as they believe that they should be able to outslay Assaults."
Recommended Reading: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=985928#post985928
TL;DR: You couldn't be more wrong about Scouts.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Vesta Opalus
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION
436
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 01:05:00 -
[42] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote:[Plasma Rifle usage rates are very heavily weighted because new players are using them on all their starter fits.
Correct; Plasma Rifle usage has always been higher than other weapons. Now compare that with Assault usage, which a few months ago was very low and is now very high (and still climbing). A similar pattern -- albeit magnified -- was observed with Scout usage rates following 1.8. There's a clear relationship between the decline in Scout usage and the incline in Assault usage. One might look at these histories and conclude that FoTM crowd (perhaps more politely, those seeking to optimize performance) dumped the Scout and have since adopted Assault. This doesn't "prove" Assault imbalance, but it certainly doesn't bode well. As it relates to this thread, now is likely not the most opportune time to buff Assaults.
I think assault usages should probably be higher than any other suit in the first place. I agree that assaults dont need a buff in general, but thats not a reason to not fix some of the cruddier suit bonuses that some suits have. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6763
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 01:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote: I think assault usages should probably be higher than any other suit in the first place. I agree that assaults dont need a buff in general, but thats not a reason to not fix some of the cruddier suit bonuses that some suits have.
I agree, but that is a dangerous standard. How much higher should assault usage be? 50% higher, 100% higher, 500%? Who knows?
If some of those suits with crappy bonuses happen to be top performers, then we have the very best reason available to leave them with their crappy bonuses in place. Assuming efficiency data says what Nyain San thinks it'll say, it'd be better to first balance Assaults against other classes, then buff GA/CA toward inner-class parity.
If efficiency data matches usage data, I'd recommend swapping Assault speeds with Logis. Far less potential fallout than reducing slot count. Helps Logis. Ensures proper tradeoff between speed and HP.
Speed: Heavy < Commando < Assault < Logi < Scout Hitpoints: Heavy > Commando > Assault > Logi > Scout
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Vesta Opalus
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION
437
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 03:53:00 -
[44] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote: I think assault usages should probably be higher than any other suit in the first place. I agree that assaults dont need a buff in general, but thats not a reason to not fix some of the cruddier suit bonuses that some suits have.
I agree, but that is a dangerous standard. How much higher should assault usage be? 50% higher, 100% higher, 500%? Who knows? If some of those suits with crappy bonuses happen to be top performers, then we have the very best reason available to leave them with their crappy bonuses in place. Assuming efficiency data says what Nyain San thinks it'll say, it'd be better to first balance Assaults against other classes, then buff GA/CA toward inner-class parity. If need be, I'd recommend starting by swapping Assault speeds with Logis. Far less potential fallout than reducing slot count. Helps Logis. Ensures proper tradeoff between speed and HP. Speed: Heavy < Commando < Assault < Logi < Scout Hitpoints: Heavy > Commando > Assault > Logi > Scout
Don't think logis need help, and I'd rather not do a speed switch. But I'd sure like to see assault effectiveness per spawn data so we can see if gal/cal (or anyone else) is underperforming. I only have Gal Assault up to 4 and Min assault up to 5, Gal seems great so far and minmitar is good as well.
As far as balance vs. other classes I think its in a good place, except I'd like to see the scouts have buffed e-war if we can do it without making them prime time slayers again, and commandos seem a little weak overall. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6767
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 04:28:00 -
[45] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote: Don't think logis need help, and I'd rather not do a speed switch. But I'd sure like to see assault effectiveness per spawn data so we can see if gal/cal (or anyone else) is underperforming. I only have Gal Assault up to 4 and Min assault up to 5, Gal seems great so far and minmitar is good as well.
As far as balance vs. other classes I think its in a good place, except I'd like to see the scouts have buffed e-war if we can do it without making them prime time slayers again, and commandos seem a little weak overall.
I respec'd into a two Assaults today (to put my money where my mouth is ). There really isn't any noticeable difference in mobility between this GA Assault fit and the majority of my GA and CA Scout fits. It has twice the HP, comparable profile and superior scans ... and it's just as fast. I have to stick with my original opinion here in that there is not currently enough of a speed gap between Scouts and Assaults. The HP gap is huge; the speed gap should be more significant than a fraction of a meter per second (in my opinion, at least).
On the other points, 100% agree. Scouts have no business being the "go-to slayer suit", and I'd love to see Commandos get a meaningful buff.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Vesta Opalus
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K RISE of LEGION
438
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 05:37:00 -
[46] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Vesta Opalus wrote: Don't think logis need help, and I'd rather not do a speed switch. But I'd sure like to see assault effectiveness per spawn data so we can see if gal/cal (or anyone else) is underperforming. I only have Gal Assault up to 4 and Min assault up to 5, Gal seems great so far and minmitar is good as well.
As far as balance vs. other classes I think its in a good place, except I'd like to see the scouts have buffed e-war if we can do it without making them prime time slayers again, and commandos seem a little weak overall.
I respec'd into a two Assaults today (to put my money where my mouth is ). There really isn't any noticeable difference in mobility between this GA Assault fit and the majority of my GA and CA Scout fits. It has twice the HP, comparable profile and superior scans ... and it's just as fast. I have to stick with my original opinion here in that there is not currently enough of a speed gap between Scouts and Assaults. The HP gap is huge; the speed gap should be more significant than a fraction of a meter per second (in my opinion, at least). On the other points, 100% agree. Scouts have no business being the "go-to slayer suit", and I'd love to see Commandos get a meaningful buff.
A Gallente scout with a similar fit would move significantly faster, be 100% immune to scans (or does he need 3 for gal logi focused scans these days? nearly immune to scanning in any case), be able to hold an additional equipment including a cloak which he would get a big bonus to fitting for, and have better precision, though yes he would have horrible hp.
Example: Gallente Scout
Im with you that scouts might need a little improvement, but given how badly this game reacts to speedy suits in terms of hit detection, etc, increasing their speed might not be the right approach. |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
6772
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 15:36:00 -
[47] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:A Gallente scout with a similar fit would move significantly faster, be 100% immune to scans (or does he need 3 for gal logi focused scans these days? nearly immune to scanning in any case), be able to hold an additional equipment including a cloak which he would get a big bonus to fitting for, and have better precision, though yes he would have horrible hp. Example: Gallente ScoutIm with you that scouts might need a little improvement, but given how badly this game reacts to speedy suits in terms of hit detection, etc, increasing their speed might not be the right approach.
Forgive me for splitting hairs here, but ...
This Scout is not significantly faster than its Assault counterpart; they are less than 1 m/s removed. Nor is this Scout 100% immune to scans; as any shotgunner or nova knifer will tell you, he is still vulnerable to falloff inner-ring passives, and he is alos still vulnerable to GA Logi active scans (yes, he needs 3 to beat focused).
Further, his precision is no different in practice than that of his Assault counterpart; the Proto Prox Scanner outperforms any Scout's mid-to-long range passives, and there's no realized difference between single precision Assault's and Scout's inner scan rings. Cloak (ugh) is situational at best and often not even worth running. Most experienced Scouts would readily trade their cloak for 200% to 300% more hitpoints. Many experienced Scouts are doing just that and are now running MN Assault.
When 600-700 HP Assaults move just as fast as super squishy "glass cannon" Scouts, there's no room left on the field for super squishy "glass cannon" Scouts. I agree that we can't make Scouts faster, which is why I'm of the opinion that Assault speed should be reduced and the speed gap widened.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |