|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9344
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 13:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote: Smart ideas?
Idea: indirect, relative improvements
The AR is not bad, but it is less good than scrambler, combat and rail rifles. It is less good than ScR because ScR is OP. It is less good than CR and RR because brick is still king.
* Gently nerf the ScR * Increase mobility/strafe penalties for plates and reactives * Add mobility/strafe penalties to ferros * Consider adding a "gravity" penalty to plates * Consider lessened plate penalty effects on Heavy Frames (including Commandos) * Consider increased plate penalty effects on Light Frames
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9352
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 16:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote: A RoF bonus also might make the Gallente Assault Bonus somewhat more useful ...
I'd support this. I'd also support a spool-up and/or kick reduction as the Cal Assault bonus. Assault bonuses should be slay-oriented, as is presently the case with MN and AM.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9362
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 18:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote: Idea: indirect, relative improvements
The AR is not bad, but it is less good than scrambler, combat and rail rifles. It is less good than ScR because ScR is OP. It is less good than CR and RR because brick is still king.
* Gently nerf the ScR * Increase mobility/strafe penalties for plates and reactives * Add mobility/strafe penalties to ferros * Consider adding a "gravity" penalty to plates which counteract myofibs * Consider lessened plate penalty effects on Heavy Frames (including Commandos) * Consider increased plate penalty effects on Light Frames
So, buff the AR by nerfing the **** out of Armor. You've been on an anti-armor and 'inertia' kick for a long time now and I don't see this as anything other than pressing your agenda on the side-bar, using the AR as your plug Anti King HP. Pro variety. We're halfway there.
Rattati has achieved high slot diversity. Shields are still very popular, but Precision Enhancers, Damage Amps and now Myofibs are all consistently appearing in the Top 10. What of low slot diversity? Which low slot modules rival brick-related modules?
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9367
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 20:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote: Idea: indirect, relative improvements
The AR is not bad, but it is less good than scrambler, combat and rail rifles. It is less good than ScR because ScR is OP. It is less good than CR and RR because brick is still king.
* Gently nerf the ScR * Increase mobility/strafe penalties for plates and reactives * Add mobility/strafe penalties to ferros * Consider adding a "gravity" penalty to plates which counteract myofibs * Consider lessened plate penalty effects on Heavy Frames (including Commandos) * Consider increased plate penalty effects on Light Frames
So, buff the AR by nerfing the **** out of Armor. You've been on an anti-armor and 'inertia' kick for a long time now and I don't see this as anything other than pressing your agenda on the side-bar, using the AR as your plug Anti uniformity. Pro variety. We're almost there. High slot module diversity has been achieved. Shields are still very popular, but Precision Enhancers, Damage Amps and now Myofibs are all consistently appearing in the Top 10. But what of low slot module diversity? Which low slot modules presently rival the usage rates of brick-related modules? Classes, suits, primaries, secondaries, equipment, grenades and now high slot modules. All diverse. But what of low slot modules? Guess you forgot about all of the following: Cardiac Regulators (a must when using Myros) Kinetic Catalyzers (even Cat Merc uses these) Profile Dampeners (do I really need to explain this?) To be honest the only ones that aren't really up to par, imo, are shield regulators (because reactive plates are more functional) and code breakers; code breakers being the case because it's just far more functional to use a Minmatar Scout than to try and force another suit to use something it's not good at. That and it's effectively useless for a large portion of game modes. The armor plates are used mostly because - brace yourself - it's part of armor tanking. Which is pretty critical for armor tanking suits. It's easy to call 'diversity' when there's only three different things to put in the high slots (precision enhancers, shield modules, and damage amps) but to say that there's an imbalance because half of the races in this game use armor as their primary defense? Please. This isn't saying that shield tanking isn't subpar - it could probably use a buff - but saying it's because armor is OP is a stretch. Back to ARs now. So if I swing by thang.dk this week, do you think I'll see Biotics and EWAR modules the Top 10 lows? Not 9/10 brick or 10/10 brick. Brick performance and brick prevalence have everything to do with AR performance.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9368
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 20:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote: So if I swing by thang.dk this week, do you think I'll see Biotics and EWAR modules the Top 10 lows? Not 9/10 brick or 10/10 brick. Brick performance and brick prevalence have everything to do with AR performance.
"Armor tanking is OP because thang.dk's market data shows a bunch of armor plates being bought on the market" Would you raise an eyebrow if usage data said:
* Scouts are outselling all other frames by a factor of 10:1 * Combat Rifles are outselling all other primaries by 10:1 * Bolt Pistols are outselling all other secondaries by 10:1 * Myofibs are outselling all other highs by 10:1 * Remotes are outselling all other EQ by 10:1
I think you'd do more than raise an eyebrow. And you'd be right to.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9369
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
[redacted]
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9392
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 02:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Banjo Robertson wrote:And one thing that people seem to ignore is that, if you did have a range increasing module, instead of it being percentage based, it could just be a fixed number, like.. increase maximum range by 5 meters, instead of increase maximum range by 5%. Which would increase shotgun optimal range from 4m to 9m.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9392
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 12:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:there will never be range increasing modules Then make the AR worth having such low range compared to the other rifles. 30 DPS pales in comparison to 30 Meters. Could also tune long range rifles to perform less reliably than short range rifles at short range. Thinking hipfire dispersion. Worked well with the RR.
Could also tune brick and shift the meta.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9398
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 01:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Knightshade Belladonna wrote:does anyone else find this topic a bit funny when thinking back on Dust history?
FKN AR SCRUBS< LEARN TO USE A REAL GUN , YEH YOU AND YOUR DAMN AR CRUTCH , GET GUD PICK UP A REAL MANS GUN , AR IS OP OP OP OP OP
and here we are, heh That's the history lesson you're going with?
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9407
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 15:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:Buff GalAssault Bonus! No! Buff CalAssault Bonus! Is it not possible that both could use slightly better bonuses? Their current bonuses aren't bad (especially GalAssault), but they certainly aren't on-par with those of MN and AM Assault. Why not swap out the GA and CA bonuses if/when we swap Logi/Assault speed? This would help to keep the slayers slaying in slayer suits (we don't want them migrating to Logi frames or back to Scout).
Thinking something like: GalAssault: -5% hipfire dispersion (plasma tech) +2% rate of fire (plasma tech) CalAssault: +5% reload speed (rail tech) -5% kick when aiming down sights (rail tech)
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9407
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 16:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:Buff GalAssault Bonus! No! Buff CalAssault Bonus! Is it not possible that both could use slightly better bonuses? Their current bonuses aren't bad (especially GalAssault), but they certainly aren't on-par with those of MN and AM Assault. Why not swap out the GA and CA bonuses if/when we swap Logi/Assault speed? This would help to keep the slayers slaying in slayer suits (we don't want them migrating to Logi frames or back to Scout). Thinking something like: GalAssault: -5% hipfire dispersion (plasma tech) +2% rate of fire (plasma tech) CalAssault: +5% reload speed (rail tech) -5% kick when aiming down sights (rail tech) When the hell did I say something like that exclusively for the Gallente Assault like some kind of selfish fool in your summarization? For someone who tries so desperately to be the voice of reason you sure start a lot of ****. Stop quoting people out of context and we might take you more seriously.
So sorry, Kirk! Fixed that quote for you. Wasn't my intent to make you sound selfish or foolish. Or close-minded, hot-headed, or belligerently biased.
What do you think of the proposed bonuses? GalAssault: -5% hipfire dispersion (plasma tech) +2% rate of fire (plasma tech) CalAssault: +5% reload speed (rail tech) -5% kick when aiming down sights (rail tech)
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9407
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 16:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Please don't misrepresent me to portray a gallente hatred or caldari bias. Misrepresent is a strong verb; I'd argue that paraphrase, summarize, generalize, abbreviate all better describe the above summation. Caldari slayers have long asked for a better CalAssault bonus, as have Gallente slayers; both sides argue that their side is in greater need. This was my intended message. I've corrected the quote to clarify intent.
MINA Longstrike wrote:There are tweaks that could be done to rail weaponry that wouldn't warrant any changes at all to the caldari assault, but as the cal assault has the exact same bonus as the caldari commando minus a 2% damage buff per level it is in a place where it basically lacks an identity in terms of specific weapon performance related bonuses compared to other assaults.
What would you propose for the CalAssault bonus?
MINA Longstrike wrote: I would argue that the bonuses presented by the minmatar and amarr assaults are balanced in and of themselves, the problems come in on either the suit in the case of the minmatar or the weapons in the case of the amarr.
That's a fair assessment.
MINA Longstrike wrote: For the record, I really like the gallente assault bonus and really enjoy playing my Galassault alt. I'm not sure what tweaking could be done to make the suit 'better' without pushing it into the realm of overpowered. I'm not in fact certain that it really needs any tweaking and it's min / amarr that need some reigning in.
Agreed. I love the GalAssault's hipfire bonus, but people have long complained that it isn't a good enough bonus. I think it necessary and appropriate to swap Logi and Assault speeds such that Mobility and HP share an inverse relationship. My concern is that if/when this change happens, we might see a slayer migration from Assault to Logi or Scout. I'm of the opinion that slightly better Assault bonuses for Gal and Cal would prevent such a migration. Further, it'd soften the "bad news" blow; regardless of benefit to balance, many slayers will be upset if/when Assault speed is tuned.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9407
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 18:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote: Lets not bring opinions and emotions into discussion of facts. Now, now. That seems a silly thing to say ...
Is it a fact or an opinion that Rattati "over-did" the RR nerf? Is it a fact or an opinion that the GA Assault bonus is "fine"? Is it a fact or an opinion that the CA Assault should have 2 weapon bonuses and other Assaults 1?
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9407
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 18:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote: Lets not bring opinions and emotions into discussion of facts. Now, now. That seems a silly thing to say ... Is it a fact or an opinion that Rattati "over-did" the RR nerf? Is it a fact or an opinion that the GA Assault bonus is "fine"? Is it a fact or an opinion that the CA Assault should have 2 weapon bonuses and other Assaults 1? The difference here being that you asked for my opinions.
Can't argue with that. +1
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9408
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 18:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote:Echo 1991 wrote: The gallente assault bonus is a redundant bonus, it provides very little benefit.
But that is factually wrong. Whether or not you value the benefit it provides is up to you, but the benefit is both meaningful and powerful. Lets not bring opinions and emotions into discussion of facts. As someone who isn't a full time Gallente your opinion that its powerful holds little weight ... There's next to no difference in performance for the weapons outside of the TACAR and IP, which even those are minimal. .
I'm no Team Gallente All-Star, so feel free dismiss my opinions/observations as well, but I find the GalAssault bonus to be noticeable and useful with Shotguns, Vanilla ARs and Burst ARs. I run all three of these weapons on various races and frames; I feel a difference when I run them on my Assault gk.0. Nonetheless, I'd personally prefer to see the dispersion bonus swapped out with an arguably more potent RoF bonus (assuming, of course, Assault and Logi movement speeds are swapped).
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9415
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 20:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:CeeJ Mantis wrote:[quote=Adipem Nothi]... I'd personally prefer to see the dispersion bonus swapped out with an arguably more potent RoF bonus (assuming, of course, Assault and Logi movement speeds are swapped). A RoF bonus seems too potent in my opinion. It's a 10% DPS increase. Kinda marginalizes the benefit of the Gallente commando except for using the PLC. I do see the potential problem with Gal Commando overlap, but I don't see a problem with RoF potency. I might be being naive, so correct my thinking where it is wrong. It makes sense to me that GalAssault with a short-range weapon should be at advantag esimilar to that of a deadly as a CalAssault + RR range. At the moment, our close-quarter GalAssault + AR is arguably no better in CQC than a GalAssault + ARR or CR or ACR. A +RoF bonus fixes that, and gives our the Assault CQC specialist an actual edge in his area of expertise.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9416
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 21:14:00 -
[17] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote: 1. To put it this way, none of the other assaults do more damage with their respective weapons (the only outlier is amarr lasers because specialist weapon), they just make them handle better. RoF bonus on the gal assault makes it have a lower ttk than other suits, which is commando territory
2. furthermore it doesn't apply equally to all plasma variants, mostly just the fully auto ones.
1. Shouldn't the GalAssault + AR stand out as the go-to, short-range slayer loadout, much like the CalAssault + RR and AM Assault + ScR stand out as the go-to, long-range slayer loadouts? If yes, then it needs to be better in close quarter combat than available alternatives; DPS gets us there. If not DPS, then what?
2. +10% RoF = +10% RoF. The Shotgun has an extremely low rate of fire; its old proficiency bonus was +3% per level. Believe it or not, the difference between Proficiency(0) and Proficiency(3) could absolutely be felt.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9417
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 21:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote: If not DPS, then what?
(Spitballing)
Could nerf short-range performance of all non-plasma weaponry to help the GalAssault + AR stand out in his specialty.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9417
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 22:35:00 -
[19] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:[ 1. Dps buffs create an imbalance. Plain and simple. They also throw rattati's damage/range table out of whack.
2. There are problems with the shotgun beyond its old proficiency bonus though and I've talked about this before, but in short its current design is broken / unbalanced - on the few suits that have the combination of footspeed and stealth required to make it useable it's pretty overpowered due to its incredibly, incredibly high alpha (yay 3 shots in less than 1.5 seconds! eat 1200+ damage!) on any suit that doesn't have that the shotgun is useless. I'd much rather have a lower alpha, longer range, sustained dps weapon (320 dmg shot @ 20m with a RoF of 100 or so, been a while since I've checked my numbers)
3. Lets not rob peter to pay paul. The current and appropriate tradeoff for range is DPS. No it isn't working perfectly as 50 dps loss is not an acceptable trade for 96% extra range, that gain of range is way too good. If we balance the range/dps trade things should fix themselves... with that said though, every mainline service rifle should have the ability to perform throughout their entire optimal, though they may not necessarily be the 'best' at it. I'll just respond to the really bad parts :-)
1. Nonsense. AScR DPS was altered and weapon balance improved as a result.
2. I've read your thoughts/proposals on the shotgun. I think it a bad idea to try to turn the shotgun into a bad rifle. I say this as a career shotgunner. If the shotgun actually hits hard down range, it'll be OP. If it doesn't hit hard at any range, it won't be worth running.
3. A scale out-of-equilibrium makes for a better analogy here; we can add to one side or subtract from the other to get where we want to be. We have a specialist with no meaningful advantage in his specialty. That's a problem. To fix the problem, we can make him better, or we can make his competition worse.
4. Fine Rifles, eh? My all-time least favorite concept! Whooping butt from the hip at 5m, then smashing faces down range at 85m. With this Fine Rifle, I'll be so good at Dust!
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9417
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 22:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote: Whether or not well agree on how to fix it the agreed statement is that what the AR sacrifices in range doesn't make up for what it gains.
Agreed.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9417
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 23:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:I've actually had a shotgun thread somewhere discussing usefulness.
I'll dig it up when I get off work.
I'd love for the shotgun to be somewhat useful on something besides a scout but the process in doing the requires a lot of delicate tuning. The shotgun is pretty good on a speed-tanked GA Assault and (obviously) MN Assault. Try this out on your gk.0.
As an aside, EWAR is holding the shotgun back more than the shotgun's specifications; this is by design and is arguably a good thing, as shotgun kill/spawn efficiency was previously disproportionate to that of other Light Weapons. EWAR changes (namely Falloff) substantially increased the risk of shotgunning. A long-range shotgun would bypass short-range inner rings, negating Falloff risk ... extending Falloff inner rings in response would threaten NK viability and introduce new balance problems ... blah blah :-)
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9417
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 23:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote: Your support of wanting to make a ton of weapons perform worse just so that a few can shine in comparison is causing me to quickly lose respect for you. Harming the vast majority of the playerbase to content a much smaller faction is bad and wrong. The correct solution to this is a functioning dps <--> range scale.
I proposed this as a spitball alternative to buffing GalAssault + AR, frankly because I can't think of any other tenable solutions. "Spitballing" doesn't qualify as "support" ... we're brainstorming here.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9417
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 23:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:MINA Longstrike wrote: Your support of wanting to make a ton of weapons perform worse just so that a few can shine in comparison is causing me to quickly lose respect for you. Harming the vast majority of the playerbase to content a much smaller faction is bad and wrong. The correct solution to this is a functioning dps <--> range scale.
I proposed this as a spitball alternative to changing GalAssault bonus and/or tuning the AR, because I can't think of any other tenable solutions to the specialization problem. "Spitballing" doesn't qualify as "support" ... we're brainstorming here. That you'd even consider it causes me concern. We spitball the wall. We put an option up, hate it as we may. We agree that its a non-option or a bad option. We discuss why. We rule it out, we move on, and we make progress.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9424
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 11:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:Damn, you are getting too bent out about this.
I may be vivid in my emotions but contrary to what my post may sound like a loss of respect certainly doesn't happen just because someone's thought process is in a different area than my own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorderI am part of the 10% lifetime persistency group. I am getting frustrated because (to me) Adipem Nothi is in support of something that is disgustingly bad, harmful and wrong and he seemingly cant see the flaws in it. What am I in support of, again?
At Short Range: Short Range Rifles > Med/Long Range Rifles
At Med/Long Range: Med/Long Range Rifles > Short Range Rifles
^ Now this is disgustingly bad, harmful and wrong ... because why?
MINA Longstrike wrote:Harming the vast majority of the playerbase to content a much smaller faction is bad and wrong. So ...
* AR-514 was good and right; fixing it was bad and wrong? * MN Assaults are good and right; fixing them would be bad and wrong?
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9425
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 13:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Here's my take on your angst, Mina, and why I think you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye.
You were upset when the long range Rail Rifle became less effective at close range; I can dig up quotes if you like. In those quotes, you refer to the RR and other rifles as "service rifles" because you believe that rifles should be deadly effective at a wide variety of ranges. In the Fine Rifle model, there are no short or long range rifles; all rifles are "every range rifles" with DPS scaled against maximum range.
The Fine Rifle model is a very popular one, as it makes for more versatile and effective rifles; this sounds good to the vast majority of player base (who happen to run rifles). Those who subscribe to this model take issue when rifles are labeled either "short range rifles" or "long range rifles" because these labels imply functional limitations. What gets Fine Rifle proponents more upset and vocal than an implied functional limitation is an actual functional limitation; like when Rattati tuned the Rail Rifle, and it lost it the ability to compete in CQC.
You (Mina) feel that the functional limitations applied to the Rail Rifle were unfair; you would like to see the Rail Rifle's capacity for CQC restored, and you're a proponent of the model described above. Here's where you and I stop seeing eye-to-eye.
The Fine Rifle model puts rifleman at significant advantage over all other types of combatants. In a balanced Dust, all weapons are viable and no weapon type carries with it a massive advantage over the next. In a balanced Dust, there is no room for a weapon or group of weapons which has substantially fewer limitations than the next. The "jack of all trade" concept works if and only if that jack is substantially inferior to less versatile weaponry.
I don't agree that a long range rifleman should be able to readily able to "defend himself" when caught offguard in CQC. He should should have to switch to close-range sidearm just like a guy with a Laser Rifle, Sniper Rifle or Forge gun. I don't agree that a short range rifleman should be able to gun down low-HP units at med/long range; he should have to switch to a long-range sidearm, just like a guy with an HMG, Knives or a Shotgun.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9425
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 13:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:aghblrugausdnawuebdfuabwdedauwdubgueberauwduawfbwauebyfhgurblrurlburblrubhrblrubhrgualbrughrlgurbhrlgurghbrugr I am a huge jackass Look guys! I can argue like nothi!
Read it. Think about it. Grow up.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9425
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 13:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
MINA Longstrike wrote:You are taking my words out of context Nothi and twisting them to say things that I haven't, you are compounding this by overly simplifying your own arguments so that it seems like I'm attacking the whole idea instead of the specifics. This is called strawmanning. I must repeat what kirk has said, for someone who apparently prides themselves on being a voice of reason, you are debating in extremely poor taste and have seemingly set out to try and make me 'wrong'. I have been talking about your statement of hitting weapons performance instead of their dps. To me, performance means things like kick, dispersion etcetera. Making a weapons performance function badly outside of its 'intended' range because reasons is a terrible approach to balance, the correct metric should be a properly scaled range vs dps function. My argument (at the moment) is a quite simple one. A Rail Rifle which works well in close quarters is a Fine Rifle. An Assault Rifle which works well at range is a Fine Rifle. Fine Rifles afford their users massive advantage over all other types of combatants. Massive advantages aren't good for balance.
MINA Longstrike wrote:Cherrypick and strawman harder prick. These 'points' are distractionary ad-hominem, non-discussion and a logical fallacy wombo-combo: being outright loaded questions, false dilemas, strawmanning and more. This is an incredibly manipulative line of 'argument', you are trying to avoid engaging with my points by instead calling me a hypocrite and criticizing me. Try actually defending your arguments instead of attacking people who see flaws with them.
I have never said anything about ar514, ever, and I will not discuss this with you.
I do not see any progression to this discussion until you stop littering it with logical fallacies and quoting me out of context, I have tried to engage with you in good nature, you are clearly not interested in extending the same courtesy. If you're trying to **** me off by acting like a jackass you've succeeded you can have alllllllllllll the internet points for it.
There's no logical fallacy. Your words:
MINA Longstrike wrote:Harming the vast majority of the playerbase to content a much smaller faction is bad and wrong. If the vast majority of the players are running around in FoTM gear, would it be bad and wrong to nerf FoTM gear? The point here is that your argument is poor. Balance doesn't care about minorities or majorities.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9427
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 16:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:You can fine rifle the game and separate out the specialist and heavy weapons for other roles and balance points. Citing fine rifles and not making that distinction obfuscates the issue.
A battle rifle is a battle rifle is a battle rifle.
I disagree. I believe that balance is better off without jack-of-all-trade Fine Rifles.
Long-range rifles performing slightly worse than short-range rifles in close quarters might balance out in an Assault v Assault or Assault v Heavy setting. But it doesn't balance out with low-HP units. To a Scout, slightly worse performance translates to dying at, say, 0.75 seconds rather than 0.50 seconds. To a unit who's frantically trying to chop away at a hitpoint gap of 200% to 300%, that 0.25 seconds is imperceptible.
CQC Scouts dying to a long-range Assaults in close quarters is just as imbalanced as CQC Assaults dying to long-range Assaults in close quarters. There's more at play here than weapon balance; role balance is also at issue. We toss around more palatable terms like "battle rifle" or "service rifle", but the reality is, effective-at-every-range Fine Rifles are bad for balance and bad for battlefield diversity.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9430
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 18:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:You can fine rifle the game and separate out the specialist and heavy weapons for other roles and balance points. Citing fine rifles and not making that distinction obfuscates the issue.
A battle rifle is a battle rifle is a battle rifle.
randomized crap having little/nothing to do with my post. Did you bother to read my posts on the topic or did you skip right to "Oh look, Mina posted after, let's make her madder by posting ad hominem. Look up "ad hominem" in a dictionary, then point out for me the "ad hominem" in my post. You claim that my position on Fine Rifles is removed from reality; I wholeheartedly disagree. You claim that Fine Rifles are fine so long as "there is a logical curve to range and DPS that is universal"; I wholeheartedly disagree.
There's nothing fine about Fine Rifles. In my post, I explain some of the reasons why. I've not personally attacked you or Mina or anyone else.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9430
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 18:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Oh and "fine rifle" is a lie. CCP's profiles alone on the weapons will create four WILDLY different performances overall even if you set every base stat identically. You like the Nerf/buff merry-go-round. Some of us think it's idiotic and would like the rifles to follow a logical progression so that choice of weapon reprersents a choice of playstyle rather than a shoehorn of "You must do it this way"
Variations in performance might be "wildly different" and readily observed at 1000+ HP, but they are imperceptible at 200-300HP. Again, we're talking about TTKs measuring in fractions of a second. It takes 5 Rail Rifle blasts to kill a Scout; damage profiles, range profiles, the race of the scout ... none of these matter. It takes 5 blasts.
If those 5 blasts are readily delivered from the hip in CQC, they will be, just like they were before, and the CQC Scout will be at significant disadvantage against long-range rail rifleman in CQC.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9430
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 19:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Oh and "fine rifle" is a lie. CCP's profiles alone on the weapons will create four WILDLY different performances overall even if you set every base stat identically. You like the Nerf/buff merry-go-round. Some of us think it's idiotic and would like the rifles to follow a logical progression so that choice of weapon reprersents a choice of playstyle rather than a shoehorn of "You must do it this way"
Variations in performance might be "wildly different" and readily observed at 1000+ HP, but they are imperceptible at 200-300HP. Again, we're talking about TTKs measuring in fractions of a second. It takes ~5 Rail Rifle blasts to kill a Scout; damage profiles, range profiles, the race of the scout ... none of these matter. It takes ~5 blasts. If those ~5 blasts are readily delivered from the hip in CQC, they will be, just like they were before, and the CQC Scout will be at significant disadvantage against long-range units in CQC. The only ways to balance low-HP Scouts against Fine Rifles would be to normalize HP levels, buff alpha weaponry, or nerf fine rifles across the board. None of these options are efficient, and all of these options run high risk of doing more harm to balance than good. Can we define the concept of Fine Rifles again here? Or point me to where its defined, and what the alternatives are? All I get so far is that its a set of rifles that are largely identical aside from dps v. range which can basically be graphed against each other in a linear and inverse progression. Not sure this matches the Dust situation since actual behavior of the gun is pretty different for each rifle.
Fine Rifles (aka service rifles, battle rifles, every-range rifles)
Rifles which deal damage effectively and reliably from 0m to maximum range without mechanical limitations/restrictions to hipfire, dispersion, falloff, kick, etc. They are balanced against one another by a inverse scale of DPS to Range. Functionally speaking, the 75m rail rifle is just as reliable from the hip as the 40m AR; what sets the AR apart from the RR in CQC is that the AR's damage output exceeds the RR's. If an AR unit and an RR unit have similar HP profiles and are fighting at 60m, the RR unit will win far more often than not. If an AR unit and RR unit have similar HP profiles and are fighting at 20m, the AR unit will win far more often than not. As maximum range goes up, DPS goes down.
^ That's the best I can do off-hand :-)
Example: For quite some time, the Rail Rifle was extremely reliable from the hip. Rattati varied from Fine Rifle model when implemented an increase in hipfire dispersion. This mechanical limitation cut away at its effectiveness in CQC. The RR remains competitive at longer range engagements and when aiming-down-sights, but its users are now best served by a sidearm when caught off-guard in close quarters.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9430
|
Posted - 2015.05.05 21:34:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tweaksz wrote:The matter of fact is rattati knows the AR is underperforming in it's niche and needs a buff nothing you will say will change his mind. It is obvious to everyone else I just can't understand why Nothi is so salty about a minor dps change. Far from salty. Doesn't make a 'bit of difference to me, so long as the next move isn't to buff long-range rifle performance at short range ... so long-range riflemen can better "defend themselves" against short-range riflemen's ARs in close quarters. Do you see what I'm getting at?
If the AR needs fixing, there's more than one way to fix it. For example, nerfing armor plates would improve AR performance relative to the CR, ACR and ARR. Maor Damage isn't the only available option.
PS: My AR skilltree is maxed.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9434
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 01:40:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tweaksz wrote: The shield/armor meta is fine and should have no input in this discussion.
Check out that low slot diversity.
Top 10 Highs 4 Shield Mods 3 Damage Mod 2 Biotics Mods 1 EWAR Mods 6/10 - Not HP Related
Top 10 Lows 9 Brick Mods 1 Biotic Mod 1/10 - Not HP Related
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9434
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 02:22:00 -
[34] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: What else is worth using in the low slots on non scout suits?
Kin Cats are about all that I would be willing to sub out a module for.
Lots of good stuff to run in lows, but nothing quite as good as brick.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
9434
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 02:56:00 -
[35] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:True Adamance wrote: What else is worth using in the low slots on non scout suits?
Kin Cats are about all that I would be willing to sub out a module for.
Lots of good stuff to run in lows, but nothing quite as good as brick. I'm quite literally not able to identify anything I need beyond my Ferros and Reppers that I need as an Amarrian. Kin Cats maybe but nothing else. Most races and frames share in your dilemma. Damps, range extenders, shield regs, card regs and code breakers all offer benefits, but those benefits can't compete with the benefits of brick. Brick is that good.
Shoot scout with yes.
- Ripley Riley
|
|
|
|