DUST Search - AR Proposal

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Cat Merc wrote:

While I agree with the premise, I don't agree with your justification.
Nothing is stopping the AR user from putting on damage mods himself.

A better argument is that beyond the effective range you always lose battles, but within your optimal range it depends on skill and not a guaranteed win even if you close the distance and do everything else right.

Long Range weapon at long range = Guaranteed win
Short range weapon at short range = A slightly higher chance to win

One is clearly better overall.

Sure, nothing is stopping them from putting damage mods on himself - but not doing so doesn't inherently give him an advantage at CQC anymore. An AR user practically has to use damage mods to remain competitive because the numbers are simple:

At 40m
AR: 453.33
ARR: 420

At 70m
AR: 158.67
ARR: 420

This is fine, because the ARR is designed for long range combat. However, it quickly becomes skewed whenever the ARR user adds a damage mod. Unless the AR fits a damage mod as well, he's at a disadvantage across the board. The ARR does not suffer from this same disadvantage at range and without range increasing modules there is no way for the AR to change it's competitive ability. Simply put, you can reduce the ARR's weakness (or any long range weapon) simply by adding damage mods, whereas a close range weapon can increase damage all it wants but still retain it's range weakness. Thereby, close range weaponry needs to have enough damage as to -remain competitive- without the necessity of damage mods within it's own range.

Make sense?


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 236	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:03:00 - [1] - Quote this would make it "OP" the AR is already great in CQC its at a good spot in my opinion, I don't understand why you would want a buff to it if range is that much of a problem I would say increase effective range and leave the optimal as it is but as it stands it does what it is supposed to do and the other variants are good at range but not so much that it steals another rifles job the only weapon that doesn't do what it is supposed to do that well is the RR but that's just my opinion I like the AR if the Caldari can't do CQC that well then why have the Gallente be good at range stick to your role if you dont like it switch roles you want range go Caldari or Amarr as the ScR is fairly OP at any range I say if there should be any buff to the AR is to give it a scope so you can aim better with the sight making it easier to kill targets at range, this would be a psudo buff as it only makes it easier to use and doesn't actually give it that much of an advantage
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 236	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:07:00 - [2] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Cat Merc wrote: While I agree with the premise, I don't agree with your justification. Nothing is stopping the AR user from putting on damage mods himself. A better argument is that beyond the effective range you always lose battles, but within your optimal range it depends on skill and not a guaranteed win even if you close the distance and do everything else right. Long Range weapon at long range = Guaranteed win Short range weapon at short range = A slightly higher chance to win One is clearly better overall. Sure, nothing is stopping them from putting damage mods on himself - but not doing so doesn't inherently give him an advantage at CQC anymore. An AR user practically has to use damage mods to remain competitive because the numbers are simple: At 40m AR: 453.33 ARR: 420 At 70m AR: 158.67 ARR: 420 This is fine, because the ARR is designed for long range combat. However, it quickly becomes skewed whenever the ARR user adds a damage mod. Unless the AR fits a damage mod as well, he's at a disadvantage across the board. The ARR does not suffer from this same disadvantage at range and without range increasing modules there is no way for the AR to change it's competitive ability. Simply put, you can reduce the ARR's weakness (or any long range weapon) simply by adding damage mods, whereas a close range weapon can increase damage all it wants but still retain it's range weakness. Thereby, close range weaponry needs to have enough damage as to -remain competitive- without the necessity of damage mods within it's own range. Make sense? the ARR is not so much intended for long range combat as it is for mid range, as it has no scope the fact of the matter is that you are comparing a mid range weapon with a short to mid range one if you want to compare it to a long range weapon compare it to the RR and not the ARR if you want to compare the ARR to something it should be in my opinion the breach AR or Burst AR
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 237	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:14:00 - [3] - Quote you also haven't considered the actual play style numbers aren't everything if they were the ScR wouldn't be so OP example using an AR on a Gal assault vs an ARR on a Cal Assault the ARR while not being aimed down sight has terrible spread and the longer you shoot the crazier it gets to be able to aim it properly it also has this little delay that puts it at a slight disadvantage its slight enough to where you can kill it before it can even get a chance to shoot back if you get a preemptive strike the AR has a lot less spread, linear kick and does not go crazy with prolonged shooting, it also has skills that further reduce this spread and the Gal Assault skill gives it further improvement
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 238	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:33:00 - [4] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: That's the exact -opposite- of what this proposal even brings to the table... It's reducing the range so that it has a clear advantage over other rifles in a CQC environment... Explain to me how this is in any way fair: Up to 40m, an AR has a 33.33 DPS advantage over an ARR. At 70m, an ARR has a 294.66 DPS advantage over an AR. Sure, if I want range I'll go Caldari - that's not up for debate. What is up for debate is what clear, distinct advantage the AR has in CQC over the other rifles. You might think its "great" in CQC but I don't. I know for a fact that I will lose a firefight with an ARR user at 70m, so why should it be a toss up as to who will win at 30m? Why should the AR not receive a clear, decisive victory in it's realm that the ARR would in it's respective realm? to me it sounds like this would make it better at mid range rather then short range as short range weaponry is around 5-20m or so, I say this because of the SG, HMG, and other such weapons I see that you would want to make it so that the Gallente and Gallente only dominate CQC and I do think your idea is good, but the problem isn't the AR its the other rifles that screw things up the ScR screws up every range and destroys shields at even long range the CR is good at range as well but even better at CQC in my opinion because of the RPM and speed that the respective suits have the RR is terrible at CQC and the ARR is not that great at it either, sure you'll lose to it more often then not if you try to go toe to toe with one past your optimal but if you are doing this you probably deserved it now the AR if you can't destroy CQC and mid range up to its optimal then you either lack the skills, quite literally the AR skill tree, or you lack aim of any sort I don't hear many people complaining about the AR being bad at CQC I do however see Gal assaults using ARR's because of the range advantage which is why I keep on bringing up the range if you do not like the way the AR works I suggest playing with other variants the burst AR is one of my favorite rifles and is great at both range and CQC even without any of the skill investment other then the lvl 4 in the main AR skill so all in all the AR doesn't need a buff it's already killer as it is, now I don't mind if it does get a buff, but it does stand that the obvious will happen and you will see a lot of people flock to it, its easy to counter ranged weapons as all you have to do is take cover, but there's not much you can do but fight back when someone is right in your face and has the advantage
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 238	Posted - 2015.06.15 06:09:00 - [5] - Quote your argument seems to be based around the ARR having too much of an advantage at range ok you are right it does as it is intended its like saying the HMG is far too advantageous in CQC ok so you want to have more of an advantage at CQC fair enough I might remind you that the Gallente have suits that are made to be used in CQC meaning thats already one advantage you have that aside you get the skills that further increase your productivity at CQC yet another advantage ok so you have a suit made for CQC and the skills to go with it that's good I dont see you complaining about that so it must not be a problem to you or it must not matter enough to mention it so lets take a look at the AR, good at CQC not horribly over powered does its job ok but you say that you'd like for it to be better at CQC that's easy enough to understand so the AR 30.90 damage per bullet 800 RPM Accuracy Rating 56.70 clip size 70 these numbers are the numbers straight off of the description I wont get into all the math as you have already stated it now the ARR 38.00 damage per bullet 0.30 second charge up 600 RPM Accuracy Rating 54.16 clip size 58 lets see here ok one thing pops up right of the bat the Accuracy Rating ok I wont go into that just something that's there if you care about it next up the clip size so the ARR has 12 less bullets what else RPM a difference of 200 and the damage 7.10 more damage per shot to the ARR lets pretend that damage profiles don't matter for a second damage per clip 3858=2,204 ARR 30.9070=2,163 AR now say you are at your optimal so 100% efficiency (remember I said lets pretend dmg profiles don't matter) 600/60=10 ARR this means you can pull off 10 shots in one second those ten shots would do 380 at optimal 800/60=13.33... this means you get lets say 13 shots in one second since the .33... would not apply till 2 seconds. you get 412 at optimal now don't get me wrong but I think that's more then enough to get rid of someone at close range mind you I didn't calculate in the charge up on the ARR to be a bit more fair bu you can see clearly that the AR does what it is meant to and does it well there's no need for complicated equations to explain something simple the damage curve is there so there can be diversity and so that no one rifle outshines all others (CoughScRCough) By no means am I trying to disprove you everything you said seems correct but as things stand the AR is doing just fine and does not need a nerf/buff this will only annoy people further and make things worse if you wish to you can use the hmg or shotgun, heck even the ion pistol is great to dominate in CQC that is if you are willing to give up the effective range, which I assume you don't as your proposal does not really affect the current optimal or the effective, all it does is give more dps at less then 30m I think that should be enough for you to understand where I am coming from and I hope you see that according to the numbers and in game mechanics that the AR is in a good place, now the other rifles we can debate about those latter too if you'd like I'm always willing to give my input
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 238	Posted - 2015.06.15 06:12:00 - [6] - Quote also be careful what you wish for, as you see you might not always get what you want, but if you do it might not turn out the way you want it to