DUST Search - [Feedback] What's OP (+ ideas on how to fix)

Breakin Stuff wrote:

nerfing assault frames: led to sentinel-primary meta.
Nerfing ferroscatles: Native regen vs. no regen (3 HP/sec doesn't count) Armor is supposed to have higher HP in exchange for slower recovery.
Other armor plates: That was why we reduced the speed penalty in the first place. now the only people who use them are sentinels ANYWAY. Reactives are bluntly crap compared to the other two. you get less HP than a shield extender in exchange for 3 HP/Sec. It's a joke.
6-man squads: limiting social aspects of the game. While I want to drop Soraya off a roof whenever the words :social aspects" come out of his mouth... removing social aspects is going to erode the playerbase BADLY (worse than now). and I'm sorry, the solo-only queue can go take a long walk off a short pier. I have always hated this idea, I have said why I think it's idiotic on numerous occasions and I'm not going to go into it again.
Creodron Flux Scanners: I enjoy having the potential to reliably ferret out scouts before the shotgun shells inevitably obliterate me, thanks. Only scouts cloaked would benefit from your change.
Myofibs: believe it or not, I LOVE skeet shoot. It's the only time when hit detection does not fail me.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.14 20:08:00 - [1] - Quote Assault Frames - Reduce Speeds Scrambler Rifles - Mimic IoP behavior to prevent followup volley after charge shot (?) ~~Ferroscale - Reduce ferro +HP values~~ (on hold) ~~Plates / Reactives - Increase movement penalties; exempt Heavy Frames from penalty~~ (on hold) 6-Man Squads - Reduce pub squad-size to 4; consider making Ambush a solo queue Creodron Flux Active Scanner - Reduce range from 200m to 150m and scan angle from 90 to 60 Active Scanners - Reduce scan duration (also add WP assist for team-share scans) ~~Myofibs - If possible, add a very brief "stagger" effect when landing following a myo-assisted jump~~ (retracted) ~~Wiggle Wiggle - If possible, add inertia on directional change~~ (on hold) Thoughts? Updated Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.14 20:45:00 - [2] - Quote DR DEESE NUTS wrote: No. Buff scout ewar Hmmmm ... 1. Have you yet read CPM Zatara's posts in this Dev Feedback thread? 2. Out of curiosity, what Scout EWAR Buffs did you have in mind? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.14 21:14:00 - [3] - Quote DR DEESE NUTS wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: DR DEESE NUTS wrote: No. Buff scout ewar Hmmmm ... 1. Have you yet read CPM Zatara's posts in this Dev Feedback thread? 2. Out of curiosity, what Scout EWAR Buffs did you have in mind? 1. No 2. Buff to cloak. Scouts using this are still seen and are defenseless and blind. A assault player should not see a scout on the tacnet without at least fitting a precision mod. Scouts are sneaky.If you want to fight scouts fit your suits to combat them. Their fragile so being able to see them on tacnet is detrimental to their survivability. And revert range amplifiers to old stats. Give scouts war points for scanning enemys with their passive scans. Passive scanning should be serious role. Whoa! Alot of that sounds reasonable. But dude. Zatara would be so angry at you right now. I'd highly recommend reading through that Dev thread. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.14 21:27:00 - [4] - Quote gustavo acosta wrote: You know, for a feedback thread this lacks a lot of explanation, and reasoning 1. Why are Assault frames OP? 2. Why are Scramblers OP? 3. Why are Ferros OP? etc, etc, etc These are all opinions, of course, based upon first-hand experience, in-game observations, forum feedback, usage rates and (sparsely available) efficiency data. But mostly, first-hand experience and in-game observations. It isn't tough to identify the things which aren't working right; players on the "giving end" often flock to those things so we see them often, and players on the "receiving end" can usually tell right away when they're being robbed. But by nature, feedback like this is anecdotal and qualitative. If it turns out that end user complaints/concerns mirror the patterns Rattati is seeing in the data, then those complaints/concerns are likely valid. This is presently the case with Assault Frames and Scrambler Rifles, both of which Rattati has already acknowledged to be at issue. As for plates (ferros included), my complaints are motivated primarily by (1) the relatively poor performance of low-HP loadouts, (2) the long-standing predominance of high-HP loadouts (aka King HP) and (3) the distinct lack of low-slot diversity which can be easily observed in usage data available at dust.thang.dk. For instance, if we look at the Top 10 low-slot modules sold every day, 9 of those modules will be brick-related; the only other low-slot module which makes the cut is the KinCat (which just so happens to offset a penalty of armor stacking). More on that subject here; there are certainly alternative approaches, but I suspect that slight nerfs to plates themselves would be the most efficient path. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.14 22:06:00 - [5] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Especially the ion pistol crap. that behavior is precisely why I hate that stupid goddamn thing. Wasn't my idea :-) Think it was the Amarr guys (TA and/or Kage) who came up with the idea of a brief cooldown sequence following a charge shot. This way you can volley or you can charge, but you can't volley immediately after a charge. Figure they know better than me, but I'm all for alternative ScR nerfs if you've got a better one in mind. As for the other items, do you disagree that they pose balance issues or do you disagree with the suggested fixes? This is an "idea thread" so if you ideas on how to fix the broken things, feel free to share them. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.14 22:37:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I disagree with the proposed fixes. Basically your proposed fixes come full circle back to where we started. and bluntly the only one I think is even worth considering is the wiggle strafe. The viziam SCR isn't going to really notice the burp on a charge shot. What the Ion pistol does, is lock up when you pull the trigger too hard and it charges very slightly. Reducing HP isn't going to help, and will in fact damage the game if rattati ever fixes the strafing or hit detection. that's deferring a problem to later. Most of this is crap that was tried, and failed miserably. I concede that it might be a good idea to hold off on nerfing plates until after we've seen the effects of Speed/HP Curve. As for the Scrambler Rifle, I really don't have a preferred fix in mind; deferring here to the guys who use it regularly (excluding the clowns who -- ignoring Rattati's feedback to the contrary-- continue to argue that it isn't really overpowered). As for "crap that was tried and failed miserably", not sure what you're talking about exactly. The only other things on the list are Active Scanners, Squad Size and Myofibs. For squad size, I'm thinking we "failed miserably" when we opted to try other things when we should have reduced squad size to 4 when Rattati first suggested it. Pub quality under Scotty 2.0 has been far from impressive. As for Myofibs, they aren't as bad as before, but how could it be bad for balance if mercs recovered for a fraction of a second between bounds? Lastly, Active Scanners are pretty ridiculous right now; negligible risk meet massive reward. Always-on scans are the new competitive standard, and I don't think it is possible to argue that always-on scans are good for balance. I'll grant that they don't pay enough WP, in fact I'd suggest increasing WP earning potential, but low WP doesn't make their effect in-game any less imbalanced. So what am I missing here? What crap was tried and failed miserably? Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 03:37:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: nerfing assault frames: led to sentinel-primary meta. Nerfing ferroscatles: Native regen vs. no regen (3 HP/sec doesn't count) Armor is supposed to have higher HP in exchange for slower recovery. Other armor plates: That was why we reduced the speed penalty in the first place. now the only people who use them are sentinels ANYWAY. Reactives are bluntly crap compared to the other two. you get less HP than a shield extender in exchange for 3 HP/Sec. It's a joke. 6-man squads: limiting social aspects of the game. While I want to drop Soraya off a roof whenever the words :social aspects" come out of his mouth... removing social aspects is going to erode the playerbase BADLY (worse than now). and I'm sorry, the solo-only queue can go take a long walk off a short pier. I have always hated this idea, I have said why I think it's idiotic on numerous occasions and I'm not going to go into it again. Creodron Flux Scanners: I enjoy having the potential to reliably ferret out scouts before the shotgun shells inevitably obliterate me, thanks. Only scouts cloaked would benefit from your change. Myofibs: believe it or not, I LOVE skeet shoot. It's the only time when hit detection does not fail me. On Assaults So a somewhat slower Assault class might bring back HMG Heavy spam? That specific cause/effect hadn't crossed my mind; would you instead suggest that Assault HP levels be reduced? Or is it that you oppose the general idea of a Speed/HP curve altogether? On Creodron Flux Active Scanners Seems as though you might be confusing this one with the Duvolle Focused Scanner. The latter is your "Scout Catcher" and the former the leading cause of permascan. The Creodron Flux's scan area is disproportionately large by comparison to all other scanners; my suggestion is that it not be. This would affect other units much more than it would affect dampened Scouts. On Solo Queue The squad bug this weekend has been annoying but, oddly enough, Ambush match quality has been vastly improved. I've had more down-to-the-wire Ambush matches yesterday and today than in the prior 30 days combined. A steamrolled Ambush match is happening here and there, but -- for the first time in recent memory -- these have been the exception rather than the norm. Bug or not, improved battle quality is a good thing, and a jump in quality like we've seen this weekend in Ambush might be something worth looking into. If players had somewhere to play where match quality was guaranteed to be high, there's a good chance we'd see improved retention rates and activity levels. There's nothing idiotic about that. On Social Aspects Perhaps you're right, but have you considered the possibility that you might not be? Our commitment to "social aspects" (read: stompsquads) has yet to help grow the playerbase. It may very well have accomplished the opposite. Over the years, how many thousands of players have walked for various reasons, low battle quality being among them? If matches had been of higher quality, how many of those players might have looked past the other issues and stayed, simply because Dust battles were awesome? And if Dust battles were awesome, how many of us would've reached out to our PSN pals to tell them about it? "Dust has its quirks, which are being worked on, but the fights are awesome. You should check it out; it's free, and I think you'll have fun." - said no one since Chromosome. Low-quality matches have been in the way of a better Dust for a long time now. Stompsquads aren't solely to blame, but they are the leading cause. I'm not saying definitely, but it is definitely possible that we'd get higher quality battles if squad size were reduced. "But the social aspect" hasn't worked for us yet, and I think it highly unlikely that it ever will. But to be safe, because you might be right, we could start with 4-man squads in one mode and monitor that mode for quality improvements. If it proves to be working, then we'd know that we're on the right track. If it doesn't, then we still have the other modes to fall back while we revert and rethink. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.17 00:43:00 - [8] - Quote Updated OP. Changed my mind about myofibs after running them again. Not to say that all the Forum Complaints are baseless; only that I'm not convinced that they're a big problem. Also, the upcoming changes to strafe speed will very likely put a dent in wiggle-wiggle as well as the "stack brick" meta, so my concerns on these points are on hold. Still in favor of ScR tuning to bring it into balance with other rifles, fitting Assaults to a Speed/HP Curve to bring them into better balance with other frames, squad size reductions to improve pub quality, and a rework of active scans to either decrease benefit/reward or increase risk/effort (in addition to fixing their low-WP problem). Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.17 01:18:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: ... in favor of ScR tuning to bring it into balance with other rifles ... ScR is in balance with other rifles in its line. Fully quantifiable statement when comparing it to the Tactical AR with its total potential 1090 Anti Shield DPS [assuming the 1164 Anti Shield ScR model] and greater anti armour DPS. The disparities emerge when you compare Tactical Rifle DPS to Assault Rifle DPS which I feel is a pointless exercise. I think the only reason the ScR is complained about is that there are no tactical Rail Rifles and Combat Rifles. Per Rattati, ScR Kill/Spawn Efficiency was at issue; as best we know, it still is. "Overly Efficient" matches my in-game experience and observations. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.17 02:33:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: True Adamance wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: ... in favor of ScR tuning to bring it into balance with other rifles ... ScR is in balance with other rifles in its line. Fully quantifiable statement when comparing it to the Tactical AR with its total potential 1090 Anti Shield DPS [assuming the 1164 Anti Shield ScR model] and greater anti armour DPS. The disparities emerge when you compare Tactical Rifle DPS to Assault Rifle DPS which I feel is a pointless exercise. I think the only reason the ScR is complained about is that there are no tactical Rail Rifles and Combat Rifles. Per Rattati, ScR Kill/Spawn Efficiency was at issue; as best we know, it still is. "Overly Efficient" matches my in-game experience and observations. 1. But does not mine so discounting those 'experiences' it is down to spawn kill efficiency. 2. Fair enough reason to alter the ScR but not see it relegated to obscurity by over zealous nerfing 1. Absolutely fair 2. Completely agree Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)