|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
   |
Posted - 2012.12.21 03:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
All of the people who are "happy" with the AR nerf never fired a weapon before. The reason why AR's are supposed to be stable platforms is because they excel in all ranges except extremely long distance that belongs to SR's. The recoil for the AR's is completely over exaggerated. |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 03:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Anyanka Shadowmane wrote:Telcontar Dunedain wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:Where's CCP's thoughts on all this and there reasonings - we can say whatever we like and it could be true or supported by biased opinions, it really doesn't matter if CCP had a plan all along for what they've done and we don't understand it.
and I had no idea about AR proto nerf. This is the real problem. The Dust CCP devs are really really poor at communicating their goals with changes like these. The AR was properly good at mid, ok at range and ok at CQB. The removal of the camera sight from the AR seems to leave a big hole in the weapons. It may be that there will be attachable scopes but it was premature to remove the camera zoom without those options in game. Wasn't that the problem with the AR though? That it was too easy to be good at all three ranges? It was the best at mid range, as well as being competitive at short and long range. As you say, no other weapon compared to it. Isn't that the definition of unbalanced?
The AR was doing what it was supposed to do.
The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union led the way with the AK-47, and other nations followed later. Combat experience during the World Wars had shown that most infantry combat took place at 200GÇô300 meters (218GÇô328 yards) distance and that the winner of any given firefight would most likely be the one with the highest rate of fire. The rifle cartridges of the day were therefore unnecessarily powerful, producing recoil and report in exchange for marginal benefit. The lower power of the intermediate cartridge meant that each soldier could fire more bullets faster and/or with less recoil and its lighter weight allowed more ammunition to be carried. |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 03:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:All of the people who are "happy" with the AR nerf never fired a weapon before. The reason why AR's are supposed to be stable platforms is because they excel in all ranges except extremely long distance that belongs to SR's. The recoil for the AR's is completely over exaggerated. Have you ever fired a Gallente AR? Or any weapon using Blaster technology, for that matter? Arguing that the rules of sci-fi have to match the real world equivalent even remotely - let alone accurately - is kind of missing the point.
To answer your question NO. But I'm not a super soldier super clone who can transmit thought either.
Also by that statement of yours then shouldn't all weapons in this game because they come from a scifi element have massive amounts of recoil because they are stronger than the weapons we use today? Not just the one weapon type but all... |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 03:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:The AR was doing what it was supposed to do.
The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union led the way with the AK-47, and other nations followed later. Combat experience during the World Wars had shown that most infantry combat took place at 200GÇô300 meters (218GÇô328 yards) distance and that the winner of any given firefight would most likely be the one with the highest rate of fire. The rifle cartridges of the day were therefore unnecessarily powerful, producing recoil and report in exchange for marginal benefit. The lower power of the intermediate cartridge meant that each soldier could fire more bullets faster and/or with less recoil and its lighter weight allowed more ammunition to be carried. It was doing what it WOULD be supposed to do IN THE REAL WORLD, where gameplay and balance aren't key concerns for weapon manufacturers to take into account. Having a weapon that's barely a half-step short of ideal for 99% of encounters is good for reality, but bad for game balance.
Weren't you one of the original guys saying screw balance adapt or die?! I find it funny how the tables turn when it's something you like lol. Like I said if that's the case then all weapons should have ridiculous amounts of recoil because of how strong they are. Oh wait we are in the future and have mastered FTL travel but can't make stable weapon platforms for our troops to fire LOL LOL! |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 03:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:All of the people who are "happy" with the AR nerf never fired a weapon before. The reason why AR's are supposed to be stable platforms is because they excel in all ranges except extremely long distance that belongs to SR's. The recoil for the AR's is completely over exaggerated. Have you ever fired a Gallente AR? Or any weapon using Blaster technology, for that matter? Arguing that the rules of sci-fi have to match the real world equivalent even remotely - let alone accurately - is kind of missing the point. To answer your question NO. But I'm not a super soldier super clone who can transmit thought either. Also by that statement of yours then shouldn't all weapons in this game because they come from a scifi element have massive amounts of recoil because they are stronger than the weapons we use today? Not just the one weapon type but all... Not necessarily, no. All weapons are based on technology we don't currently possess much of an equivalent for though, so their handling is almost guaranteed to be at least somewhat different to the real-world weapon that most closely matches their performance.
Yet all of the other weapons handle like the real world equivalents except the AR's hmmm. Also with future tech comes better performance if you can't make a stable weapon platform for my soldiers we take our business else where. With new technology things should get better not worse . |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 03:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:The AR was doing what it was supposed to do.
The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union led the way with the AK-47, and other nations followed later. Combat experience during the World Wars had shown that most infantry combat took place at 200GÇô300 meters (218GÇô328 yards) distance and that the winner of any given firefight would most likely be the one with the highest rate of fire. The rifle cartridges of the day were therefore unnecessarily powerful, producing recoil and report in exchange for marginal benefit. The lower power of the intermediate cartridge meant that each soldier could fire more bullets faster and/or with less recoil and its lighter weight allowed more ammunition to be carried. It was doing what it WOULD be supposed to do IN THE REAL WORLD, where gameplay and balance aren't key concerns for weapon manufacturers to take into account. Having a weapon that's barely a half-step short of ideal for 99% of encounters is good for reality, but bad for game balance. Weren't you one of the original guys saying screw balance adapt or die?! I find it funny how the tables turn when it's something you like lol. Like I said if that's the case then all weapons should have ridiculous amounts of recoil because of how strong they are. Oh wait we are in the future and have mastered FTL travel but can't make stable weapon platforms for our troops to fire LOL LOL! When did I ever say "screw balance"? Find it and link it, and make sure it isn't painfully obvious sarcasm. If I did, then I'm sorry, and I was wrong. But yeah, I've said "adapt or die" quite a few times. And this will probably develop into another of those times. Game has changed. In my opinion, it's a change for the better. I sucked with ARs before they got nerfed/changed. I still suck with them. When other players were good with them and a lot of non-AR-users (and some AR users) called them OP, I found ways to kill their users anyway, or died trying. Don't like the new AR mechanics? Adapt or die. If they nerf something I like, or am good with, I'll either find a new way to make it work (adapt) or I'll move to a different weapon (adapt) and until I succeed at one of those two options.... (die) I see no problem, and I see no contradiction.
How could you suck with the AR but say it needs a nerf or like the nerf it received. In any FPS a weapon that needs a nerf is a weapon that any and all players could use with little to no effort. Something like SMG's in the new COD but that wasn't the case in Dust with the AR's because there were still people who could not use them properly... |
|
|
| |
|