DUST Search - AR Proposal

All Channels

General Discussions

AR Proposal

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 04:46:00 - [1] - Quote IMO, the weapon needs a clear indicative advantage in CQC due to the general fact that while you can increase DPS on a weapon you cannot increase range. Ranged weaponry will always be at an advantage over the AR because of this, as you can compliment long-ranged weapons with Damage Modifiers to reduce the gap in DPS. To put it simply: An prototype ARR with a single complex damage modifier has just 4 DPS difference compared to a prototype AR without, but it also has +30m worth of range. This is a significant advantage. My proposal is to further narrow the AR's speciality and focus on it's low range and damage. Exhibit A. By reducing the optimal range by 10m (putting it at 30m optimal) and increasing the DPS to 551, the AR retains the same DPS that it has at 40m currently (453.33) but becomes extremely fierce at <30m where it should, without a doubt, have an advantage over the other rifles, much in the same sense that the ARR has, without a doubt, the advantage at 70-100m. If this proposal is too much in favor of the AR, we can reduce the effective range by 10m as well. Exhibit B. The negative aspects of this proposal are thusly: 1) TTK for this thing will be incredibly short at <30m - albeit, that is sort of the premise. At 40m, nothing changes, and the weapon performs as it does currently beyond that. 2) Shield damage, with this proposal, would sky-rocket to 606.1 DPS. Considering the state of shields, this might be a bit too powerful. Discuss. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 17	Posted - 2015.06.15 04:51:00 - [2] - Quote 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. "To find out if they consent, poke the giant boobs. If they jiggle once, that means no. If twice, that means yes" - Anon
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:00:00 - [3] - Quote 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? Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 236	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:03:00 - [4] - 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 - [5] - 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
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:08:00 - [6] - Quote Sicerly Yaw wrote: 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 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? Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 237	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:14:00 - [7] - 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
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:21:00 - [8] - Quote Sicerly Yaw wrote: 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 Mid-range/Long-range has little to do with it. Compare an AR to an RR? Cool, its the same logic. 40m, AR receives a 55.64 DPS benefit over the RR. 75m, the RR receives a 243.43 DPS benefit over the AR. Damage mods further skew this unless the AR fits them as well and keeps the number game in check, otherwise, he's just at a disadvantage. Again, a close range weapon cannot overcome it's weakness of range but a long-range/mid-range (honestly, any longer ranged weapon, it really does not matter) can overcome it's weakness of DPS just by adding modules. This option is simply not available for shorter ranged weaponry and as such it needs a complement to make up for that fact. And sure, we can say that dispersion/recoil has something to do with it but that is largely up to the player to handle up on. Is the AR easier to use? Arguably. That still does not change the fact that the damage application is skewed. Consider for a moment: What is the likeliness of an AR killing an ARR or RR user at >70m? Would you say anywhere near as close as the likeliness as an ARR or RR killing an AR user at <40m? Unless you can, without a shadow of a doubt, say yes, than I'd like to believe my argument stands. EDIT: Another thing, how can it be that an AR having a 131 DPS advantage over the ARR at <30m be OP but the ARR sees this sort of benefit at other ranges: 50m 42.58 60m 140.8 70m 239.02 75m 243.43 80m 196.14 85m 148.85 90m 101.55 I'd say the "it would be OP" argument is somewhat flawed, honestly. It would be no more OP, relatively speaking, than an ARR in the opposite situation. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:32:00 - [9] - Quote When we plot damage over area the AR stands at a significant disadvantage to the other rifles. If the weapon is not allowed to have range than it must have better damage and/or dispersion and/or shield/armor modifiers and/or reload speed and/or clip size. Damage is the obvious choice given the damage/range curve, but too much damage is problematic and if we reduce the weapon's range even more it will become a situational specialty weapon and problematic as the Gallente default infantry weapon. There is one more modification we could try, if the game engine supports it: give the plasma rounds volume, which means they have cross-sectional area. We can choose any shape we like, e.g. a short but broad cylindrical volume propagating along its principal axis. Plasma rounds with a cross sectional area would be more likely to hit their target: even if a merc's aim is off-target so long as he's close enough to be within the plasma-cylinder's radius it would be a hit. There are two primary advantages to this: It allows us to avoid game-unbalancing short-range dps. A buff to dps is still warranted for the AR, but volumetric rounds allow us to limit how much we need to buff dps to achieve parity with the other race's rifles. The advantage of volumetric rounds is greatest at short range and vanishes to almost nothing at long range where dispersion dominates. Another way to look at this is that volumetric rounds effectively increase the size of the target's hitbox, significantly at cqc range and marginally at long range. The size of this effect can be tweaked & tuned by changing the radius of the plasma-round cylinder. In short, volumetric plasma rounds, a small dps buff and a reload speed buff(because cqc) would give the Gallente Plasma rifle cqc dominance without unbalancing other suits or rifles. PSN: RationalSpark
Sicerly Yaw Quantum times 238	Posted - 2015.06.15 05:33:00 - [10] - 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 - [11] - 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 - [12] - 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
LUGMOS Corrosive Synergy No Context 4	Posted - 2015.06.15 08:05:00 - [13] - Quote Ahem... Never mind, not about weapons Sniper Rifles are for Nitrogenous Dioxide Borons I am the Anti-FoTM
Spankdamonke The Unsung Heroes 75	Posted - 2015.06.15 10:19:00 - [14] - Quote I would like to see DPS increase to that of the ASCR (493 at proto) With perhaps a 5m decrease to optimal. But I don't really think the range nerf is warranted given the large disparity between the racial weapons range/damage curve. This would bring shield and armor damage to 542 and 444 respectively. Still a tad high on the shield damage inside optimal, but not outrageous. But, it would help solidify the AR as a clear choice for it's defined role, without skewing the lines too much. Plus having a preferable damage profile that something like the ASCR finds itself lacking in for most CQC fights (Bricked out sentinels come to mind)
Dreis ShadowWeaver 0uter.Heaven 4	Posted - 2015.06.15 11:11:00 - [15] - Quote I do like the idea of making the AR the best in CQC, but I worry that it would become overused due to how relatively easy it is to actually get into CQC. I know that if these proposed changes came to be, the AR would probably become the Scout weapon of choice. Perhaps there's another way to improve it's CQC performance? Would limiting all the other rifles' CQC performance be a potential solution? Creator of the 'Nova Knifers United' channel My Minja Blog Caldari blood, Matari heart <3
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 13:07:00 - [16] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: 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. Formerly Fine Rifles: * Assault Rifles - this weapon no longer excels at every range * Rail Rifles - this weapon no longer excels at every range Still Fine Rifles: * Scrambler Rifle - this weapon excels at every range * Assault Rail Rifle - this weapon excels at every range * Combat Rifle - this weapon excels at every range (ACR less so) Opinion: Balancing against imbalance would only create more imbalance. First, fix the remaining Fine Rifles. Suggestions: * Scrambler Rifle - Increase hipfire dispersion and kick * Assault Rail Rifle - Reign in damage at range * Combat Rifle - Increase hipfire dispersion and kick Results: AR, ARR, ACR, ASCR become the best tools for the job at close range. BrAR, BuAR, CR become the best tools for the job at medium range. RR, TAR, ScR become the best tools for the job at longer range. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley (for CPM2)
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 640	Posted - 2015.06.15 13:14:00 - [17] - Quote All I see it needs is just a buff. Something like 32std, 34adv, 36pro 48th Special Operations Force Twitter-@48SOF
Scheneighnay McBob Tribal Liberation Force Paramilitary 7	Posted - 2015.06.15 17:17:00 - [18] - Quote I don't see anything wrong with the current AR design. High damage, and a pretty big mag. Having that high of damage actually counteracts the damage falloff at range, to a point. Not to mention that, due to poor map design, most fighting in Dust is done within the AR's optimal anyway. Rule 34.6.1: every parody will have a crossover
CommanderBolt KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 3	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:11:00 - [19] - Quote Not to be a party pewpewper however I am against anything that further craps on primarily shield using infantry. Maybe it is time we normalised the damage profiles somewhat. Either that or we seriously need to have a think about shields (And no I DON'T think they need HUGE buffs.......... just well thought out tweaks) "Madness how we turned our common-ground into a battle-ground.." - Essa
Moochie Cricket The Templis Dragonaurs Evil Syndicate Alliance. 1	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:17:00 - [20] - Quote Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. FOR THE STATE

DR DEESE NUTS 145	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:18:00 - [21] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Not to be a party pewpewper however I am against anything that further craps on primarily shield using infantry. Maybe it is time we normalised the damage profiles somewhat. Either that or we seriously need to have a think about shields (And no I DON'T think they need HUGE buffs.......... just well thought out tweaks) Make extenders half of plates. Complex hp 68 Enhanced hp 55 Basic hp 43 Yay now we can buff ar. The USS m`dick
DR DEESE NUTS 145	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:23:00 - [22] - Quote Moochie Cricket wrote: Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. You obviously don't know the power of a rail rifle on a roof top raining down death upon everyone in a calmando. Or a rail rife defending areas killing everyone that gets near locking down a whole part of the map. There are many objectives in the open trusts me. The USS m`dick
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:29:00 - [23] - Quote Sicerly Yaw wrote: 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 I have 75m SP and all skills relevant to the AR maxxed out. Take a look at what corp I'm in because I can guarantee you I didn't get in because I have terrible gun-game. As far as not hearing many people complaining about the AR being bad at CQC - you're right, there aren't any. No-one is saying it is bad at CQC, but they're not saying it is outstanding either. There's a reason that the ARR is the most used weapon on Gallente Assault suits in PC. The Assault Rifle is fine, but being at one end of the range/damage spectrum it needs to be remarkable at what it is designed for. Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote: I do like the idea of making the AR the best in CQC, but I worry that it would become overused due to how relatively easy it is to actually get into CQC. I know that if these proposed changes came to be, the AR would probably become the Scout weapon of choice. Perhaps there's another way to improve it's CQC performance? Would limiting all the other rifles' CQC performance be a potential solution? I would much rather give the AR a buff than to hit all three of the other rifles in an attempt to balance them. The other rifles are decent where they're at (ASCR is a little crazy, it has outright replaced my AR on a lot of my suits lately) and good at what they're supposed to be used for. I don't think it is necessary to try and balance the AR by hitting all the other rifles. Scheneighnay McBob wrote: I don't see anything wrong with the current AR design. High damage, and a pretty big mag. Having that high of damage actually counteracts the damage falloff at range, to a point. Not to mention that, due to poor map design, most fighting in Dust is done within the AR's optimal anyway. Did you look at the graph I posted at all? It has the exact same DPS values at range that it currently does. In fact, in Exhibit B, it actually has -reduced- effective range. That would be a nerf to the AR's DPS past 40m. With exhibit A, the AR performs -exactly as it does right now and currently- at anything beyond 40m. The only thing that is changed is how much damage it does <40m. To be frank: No. It would not counteract the damage falloff at range. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 18:33:00 - [24] - Quote Moochie Cricket wrote: Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. Did you forget that Shotguns, Nova Knives, and HMGs are a thing or did you just forget that Scouts and Heavies reign supreme in the Orbital Artillery and Gallente Lag Facility? Are you saying that this proposal sucks in practice because it'd be doing a similar job as those weapons, but offer much more in variety and diversity among those situations? Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)
Moochie Cricket The Templis Dragonaurs Evil Syndicate Alliance. 1	Posted - 2015.06.15 19:16:00 - [25] - Quote DR DEESE NUTS wrote: Moochie Cricket wrote: Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. You obviously don't know the power of a rail rifle on a roof top raining down death upon everyone in a calmando. Or a rail rife defending areas killing everyone that gets near locking down a whole part of the map. There are many objectives in the open trusts me. I have a prof5 rr and proto calmando. I do know how deadly that can be. I also know how situational it is, how exposed you are, and how useless you can be if the other team has half a brain. FOR THE STATE
DR DEESE NUTS 146	Posted - 2015.06.15 19:21:00 - [26] - Quote The rifles I see in pc are cr,acr,scr,Ascr,arr. I rarely see rail rifles and the only plasma rifles I see are mine. The USS m`dick
Moochie Cricket The Templis Dragonaurs Evil Syndicate Alliance. 1	Posted - 2015.06.15 19:22:00 - [27] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Moochie Cricket wrote: Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. Did you forget that Shotguns, Nova Knives, and HMGs are a thing or did you just forget that Scouts and Heavies reign supreme in the Orbital Artillery and Gallente Lag Facility? Are you saying that this proposal sucks in practice because it'd be doing a similar job as those weapons, but offer much more in variety and diversity among those situations? I'm saying it doesn't work well in practice because most engagements with rifles in dust occur within 40 meters already because of map design. I also disagree with your assumptions and mathematical breakdown of dps because you don't even mention the rail rifle charge up time or insane recoil. FOR THE STATE
Her Chosen Grade No.2 314	Posted - 2015.06.15 19:23:00 - [28] - Quote I think the AR is just as good as any other weapon in the light rifle category. If used as intended. However, the bigger problem is map design. Long lines of sight give way to range weapons. The medium/short/CQC zone is the AR's optimal. Nothing stands up to it, not even a CR. That dark cloud Latest Upload
DR DEESE NUTS 146	Posted - 2015.06.15 19:24:00 - [29] - Quote Moochie Cricket wrote: DR DEESE NUTS wrote: Moochie Cricket wrote: Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. You obviously don't know the power of a rail rifle on a roof top raining down death upon everyone in a calmando. Or a rail rife defending areas killing everyone that gets near locking down a whole part of the map. There are many objectives in the open trusts me. I have a prof5 rr and proto calmando. I do know how deadly that can be. I also know how situational it is, how exposed you are, and how useless you can be if the other team has half a brain. It's also situational whenever the person 40 meters or closer is not using an hmg or shotgun. Dealing more dmg and having more hp then you or doesn't show up tell there right behind you. The USS m`dick
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 10	Posted - 2015.06.15 23:09:00 - [30] - Quote Moochie Cricket wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Moochie Cricket wrote: Your proposal and reasoning sounds good on paper, but here is a reason why it sucks in practice. There isnt a single objective in dust that is out in the open. Not one single objective. You have a long range weapon like a rail rifle? Have fun assaulting a letter when you are within every rifles optimum range. Did you forget that Shotguns, Nova Knives, and HMGs are a thing or did you just forget that Scouts and Heavies reign supreme in the Orbital Artillery and Gallente Lag Facility? Are you saying that this proposal sucks in practice because it'd be doing a similar job as those weapons, but offer much more in variety and diversity among those situations? I'm saying it doesn't work well in practice because most engagements with rifles in dust occur within 40 meters already because of map design. I also disagree with your assumptions and mathematical breakdown of dps because you don't even mention the rail rifle charge up time or insane recoil. Than feel free to come up with a better proposal - either way, lot of people still think the AR is underperforming and the data pulls from PC confirm it. EDIT: Just as well, if we're going to consider things like recoil, we'd have to consider the heat build-up/seize for ASCRs but that doesn't seem to be a problem considering how powerful it is in the current meta. Design a Skin Challenge POLL (Vote Now!)



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Sniper Rifles are for Nitrogenous Dioxide Borons