DUST Search - DPS/Range Ratios

Vesta Opalus wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

How much is 1m of range worth in terms of DPS? Using Assault Rifle as a base (I would include ASCR but protofits hasn't updated the stats I don't think)

*SKIP TO MY NEXT POST*

Now, this is just looking at optimal ranges. Effective ranges are a little more wonky because they're a bit more standardized and all weapons have 250m absolute range; so there's no point in looking up the ratios there. Obviously we'd also have to account for the charge-up time for the ARR and heat build for the ASCR but I personally feel as though the DPS/Range ratio is skewed too much in favor of range.

What do you guys think?

Dunno, I dont think current range v. dps makes any sense. For example, scrambler rifle has overwhelming destructo dicks dps and the rail rifle has roughly half(?) and is far harder to keep on target for what, 6 meters? But hey Im comparing the best rifle to the biggest joke rifle, so what do I expect. Other rifles seem alot closer to balanced than these two, but damage profiles provide a pretty big spoiler across the board.

P.S.: And again just like in the speed vs. EHP threads I find myself compelled to remind everyone that DPS and range are not the only mechanics at play with these rifles, just putting them on a graph with a pretty line arcing nobly across it is not going to result in balance. Breach rail rifle kicks all over the place and the breach AR is steady as a rock and stuff like that needs to be taken into account if that kind of disparity in mechanics is going to stay in the game.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.05.31 14:33:00 - [1] - Quote How much is 1m of range worth in terms of DPS? Using Assault Rifle as a base (I would include ASCR but protofits hasn't updated the stats I don't think) Example: -----> Assault Rail Rifle (proto): 72m Optimal, 420 DPS -----> Assault Rifle (proto): 40m Optimal, 453.33 So in this case, you lose 1.04 DPS per 1m of range. Whereas: ------> Assault Combat Rifle (proto) 62m Optimal 436.60 DPS -----> Assault Rifle (proto): 40m Optimal, 453.33 In this case, you lose 0.76 DPS per 1m of range. Now, this is just looking at optimal ranges. Effective ranges are a little more wonky because they're a bit more standardized and all weapons have 250m absolute range; so there's no point in looking up the ratios there. Obviously we'd also have to account for the charge-up time for the ARR and heat build for the ASCR but I personally feel as though the DPS/Range ratio is skewed too much in favor of range. What do you guys think? Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.05.31 16:20:00 - [2] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I think so as well. There's also the invisible, un-measurable stat of "realistic range"- the rail rifle's realistic range isn't as long as its optimal, because the recoil doesn't let you hit accurately that far. The scrambler rifle, on the other hand, can effectively keep hitting at its optimal. I botched something hardcore. Apparently when I copy/pasted my notes it only transferred like, the first half of my argument. Having to go back and do the math over again to show what I'm talking about. Okay, so, if you take the DPS of the rifles at their optimal ranges and compare them.... You'll see that: The (proto) ARR has 72m Optimal Range whereas the AR has 40m optimal range. Taking the AR's DPS at 72m we can subtract that from the AR's damage and find that the ARR has a 263.1 DPS advantage over the AR at 32m longer range. That equates to a ratio of 8.22 DPS per 1 Meter. The (proto) ACR has 62m optimal range. That means that the DPS difference is 199.36 over the AR at 22m longer range. That equates to a ratio of 9.06 DPS per 1 Meter. Now, hypothetically, if you kept those same ratios but inverted them, then the closer you got the more damage you did. So the DPS over range wouldn't be consistent until it hit optimal (essentially meaning that, instead of a flat-line or plateau up until you hit the maximum of your optimal range you'd have a curve/line from highest DPS at 0m range to the lowest DPS at 250m absolute range) Averaging and inverting those ratios gives a 8.64 DPS per 1 Meter average and if we inverted the range that would mean that: At 0m the AR would be doing 798.43 DPS 10m = 712.53 DPS 20m = 626.13 DPS 30m = 539.73 DPS 40m = Current DPS of 453.33 Obviously that would make the AR stupidly ridiculously OP at close range but then again that might give players some forethought before wanting to engage them at those close ranges, much in the same way it gives them forethought on engaging a Rail Rifle at it's optimal range. Maybe a system of diminishing returns to account for that fact. The overall goal is to give closer range weapons a distinct and significant advantage over long-range weapons, much like long-range weapons have over close range weapons. It sounds insane until you compare the DPS values of long-range weapons to close-range weapons at the optimal range of said long-range weapon. So, to hash this out, my proposal would be to implement a DPS/Range base method of consistent values. A set number of DPS gained per meter on a weapon to help balance them out a bit more instead of tweaking them randomly. Just thinking. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.01 15:59:00 - [3] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: How much is 1m of range worth in terms of DPS? Using Assault Rifle as a base (I would include ASCR but protofits hasn't updated the stats I don't think) SKIP TO MY NEXT POST Now, this is just looking at optimal ranges. Effective ranges are a little more wonky because they're a bit more standardized and all weapons have 250m absolute range; so there's no point in looking up the ratios there. Obviously we'd also have to account for the charge-up time for the ARR and heat build for the ASCR but I personally feel as though the DPS/Range ratio is skewed too much in favor of range. What do you guys think? Dunno, I dont think current range v. dps makes any sense. For example, scrambler rifle has overwhelming destructo dicks dps and the rail rifle has roughly half(?) and is far harder to keep on target for what, 6 meters? But hey Im comparing the best rifle to the biggest joke rifle, so what do I expect. Other rifles seem alot closer to balanced than these two, but damage profiles provide a pretty big spoiler across the board. P.S.: And again just like in the speed vs. EHP threads I find myself compelled to remind everyone that DPS and range are not the only mechanics at play with these rifles, just putting them on a graph with a pretty line arcing nobly across it is not going to result in balance. Breach rail rifle kicks all over the place and the breach AR is steady as a rock and stuff like that needs to be taken into account if that kind of disparity in mechanics is going to stay in the game. Right but the Rail Rifle's recoil is a drawback -because- we don't have any sort of standardized baseline. If you iron out the DPS/Range ratio then the need for having higher recoil isn't as necessary. The recoil was only ever put in to balance it in the close-range anyhow -BECAUSE- it was performing just as well at 10m as it was at 72m. The only other factors that can really be considered are dispersion (which, there is none if you're aiming down the sight), recoil (can be managed/changed), mag count, and reload speed. A few other extenuating factors like heat build/seize on the scrambler and charge on the rail as well but they're not universally applied and can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis. The general gist here is that if you compare an ARR against an AR at 72m, there's no contest. But at 10m, the AR doesn't have the comparative bonus that the ARR has over it at long-range. It's not going to be a hands-down win scenario. So, by all accounts, having a long-range weapon (if you can work around the recoil/charge) is by far the better option. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.01 22:08:00 - [4] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: Ice Royal Glantix wrote: How are you going to apply this metric to longer range weapons? By using your 8.64 DPS per meter, the Ishukone Assault Rail Rifle would achieve over 1000 DPS within 5 meters, unless I am misunderstanding. All this system does is promote the use of long range weapons at close range. Just my 0.02 ISK I don't think he literally meant to increase the base DPS that high to give it extra range... I think what he meant is that since all frames are getting put on a "HP/Speed" curve(which is ******** IMO, but w/e it's his game) the weapons should be too, hence higher range = less DPS, using the gallente AR as a base. Of course i could be completely misreading the entire thing and he really does want to give the RR 1k DPS. Nah, you pretty much nailed it on the head. As I said previously, the problem with plateaued/linear DPS/Range ratios within optimal is that it doesn't account for how lower-range weapons will perform compared to higher weapons at those longer ranges. Whereas an ARR will always be doing 420 damage within 72m, the AR will have drastically less DPS by that point - that isn't the case within close range though. The ARR doesn't lose any DPS by being within the AR's optimal range, so there's no real downside to using it as opposed to the AR. We had to -fabricate- balancing mechanics through charge-up times, heat build-up/seize, and crazy recoil in order to balance longer ranged weapons with close range weapons. The easier solution might've been to just give them the Laser Rifle treatment. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)