DUST Search - Duvolle Assault Rifle

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.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 657	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:57:00 - [1] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Did Rail Rifle usage drop once it lost its Fine Rifle status? Absolutely. But did it break? Absolutely not. Despite its new-found lack of CQC prowess, the Rail Rifle remains a very popular weapon; it's presently in the Top 3. It doesnt matter how popular it is, its junk now. It cant compete in close range against anything (I'd rather have an SMG), and it cant compete at long range with the ASCR/SCR. At its absolute longest range, as you start losing damage from exceeding your optimal, it might win over an ASCR but still gets wrecked by the tactical, and in addition you start losing any realistic chance of killing whatever you are shooting at before it gets into cover because of long range damage loss. I mean sure, against run of the mill pub idiots, its still fine, but if you are fighting against someone who is dangerous, at any range, I would rather have any of the other rifles, without exception, than the breach rail rifle. Also about nerfing other weapons short range performance to buff the AR: this also buffs other short range weapons, such as the HMG, shotgun, every sidearm, mass driver, etc. I'd rather have AR balance be handled by making changes to the AR itself.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 657	Posted - 2015.05.05 18:09:00 - [2] - Quote Sgt Kirk wrote: Vesta, it not being able to compete with the Scrambler is more so on the fault of the Scramblers being OP currently than the Rail Rifle sucking. The next hotfix will tone Scramblers down. I agree, but its still a big component in the current balance for the breach RR.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 657	Posted - 2015.05.05 18:50:00 - [3] - Quote 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.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 658	Posted - 2015.05.05 23:48:00 - [4] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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. I think this point bears repeating: the current armor meta will make things like the AR look very poor. The fact that the ASCR was also underperforming and the only outlier to this was the scrambler just speaks to how dominant armor meta is right now, and buffing these weapons is a direct nerf to shields, which are already having a tough time. Be careful when you buff anti shield rifles, the ASCR might be a bit overpowered against shields post buff, though its doing fine against armor tank.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 659	Posted - 2015.05.06 04:03:00 - [5] - Quote Tweaksz wrote: Why do people still think armor/shield meta is bad? I have personally used a dual-tank fit(gallente) where my shields were 259 with a 31 regen and 2.5 sec delay and very few times did my shields get depleted. Why? Simply because I was using shields to how they are supposed to be applied. Using cover and using my quick regen to punish people with less recovery in a firefight. Caldari have this and way more at their disposal with rail tech backing up this kind of tactic. The problem is people stack extenders with zero regulation modules thinking they are going to tank like an armor suit fitted with straight up armor plates. If you stack plates on a suit you sacrifice quit a bit of regen increasing downtime by quite a lot. The shield/armor meta is fine and should have no input in this discussion. Shield/armor meta is close to balanced for individuals, but incredibly imbalanced at the team level. When people are talking about buffing an anti shield weapon, when the scrambler and ASCR are already very effective (too effective, if the upcoming scrambler nerf is any indication) at murdering shield suits without much effort unless they brick dual tank, its worth adding to the discussion that #1: anti shield weapons seem worse than they actually are in the current climate (because real shield tanking is not used as much as it 'should' be if things were balanced) and #2: buffs to shield weapons are just going to make the shield/armor imbalanced worse. So yes, shield armor meta conditions should have input in this discussion, since the discussion is essentially about making yet another anti shield weapon stronger and making yet another armor dropsuit better.