|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matakage
WildCard Ninja Clan
170
   |
Posted - 2013.05.25 02:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
[Feedback/Request] 3 Sensible Nerfs for the Tactical AR
As with any discussion regarding game balance, it's important to first agree on definitions, standards, ideals, or all of the above if necessary, so let's first define the role of the Tactical Assault rifle:
The distinguishing features of the Tactical Assault Rifle (TAR) include the dot sight, the optimal and maximum range, the damage, the firing type (semi-auto), the rate of fire, and the name itself. Even when you only consider that the TAR in comparison to the AR has a more precise aiming sight, longer range, and is single shot, it is safe to assume that the role of the TAR is precise single-shot placement at ranges including and extending beyond that of an AR.
Now that it's established what a TAR is supposed to do, corrections can be made based on deviations from this role -- especially deviations which replace the traditional roles of other weapon types. For the sake of brevity, I won't define the role of the Assault Rifle (AR), but will do so as needed. Also, my personal testing and experience is with the Tactical Duvolle AR, but there is no reason why these changes shouldn't apply to the GLU-5 as well. So first of all, this may or nay not surprise you, but here is the first baseline that should be established:
There should be no change in damage, optimal range, or maximum range.
This is what most defines the TAR's role, thus it should not be changed.
What should be changed, however, directly relates to its defined role and the deviations from that role which replace the role of the regular AR. To put it more simply, wherever the TAR is "stepping on the toes" of the AR, or being more useful than the AR where it shouldn't be, this needs to be changed.
1. Reduced Rate of Fire
In my personal experience with the gun I never thought of this as a problem, but upon further testing I realized how exploitable and contrary to the TAR role it really is. As listed in the weapon stats, the rate of fire (ROF) is 789, which is higher than the Duvolle AR's 750. This alone is perplexing, but understandable when you consider that it's a semi-auto gun. It's not full auto, so who cares what the ROF is? While it is difficult to achieve this speed with repeated tapping of the finger, the idea that the increased ROF is an odd but harmless statistic is completely thrown out the window when you introduce a controller with a turbo feature. Now the rate of fire is completely exploitable, causing the TAR to be far superior to the AR in close and medium-range combat.
For comparison, I tried the Breach variant of ARs and found that its ROF of 400 seemed pretty acceptible for TAR. A little higher or lower may not be a huge deal, but definitely not more than 500. For those interested in some hard numbers behind this, I did a little math for comparison:
Duvolle AR: 37.4 DMG x 750 ROF = 28050 DMG per unit time
Duvolle TAR: 78.5 DMG x 789.5 ROF = 61975 DMG per unit time
Now, if you wanted to make the TAR's damage per unit time equal to the Duvolle AR, you would have to reduce the ROF to 357.3 (28050 / 78.5 = 357.3). This is why I believe that a ROF of 400, 420, or even 450 might still be appropriate. Keep in mind, the weapons are NOT equal. The TAR requires AR Proficiency I, so the DMG per unit time should be higher. Ultimately, however, the decision regarding ROF should not be made based on DMG per unit time, but rather an acceptible human limitation of button-pressing speed. In other words, the ideal ROF should try to match and not exceed the upper limit of a human's capacity to tap the trigger as quickly as possible.
However, this problem, regardless of rate of fire, is further compounded by the need for...
2. Increased bullet spread at hip fire.
This is, I believe, the number one issue regarding the the TAR being over-powered. At first I tried to operate the gun as expected -- I set myself up for shots at medium-long range, capitalizing on my optimal range advantage. Soon I realized that at 20, 30, almost up to 40 meters I could tap the trigger as quickly as I could from hip-fire and still take down targets. Now, I estimate that it takes around 6-8 shots to kill someone when aiming center-mass with the TAR. The math, damage mods included, also supports this. Even with a restricted ROF of 400, these shots happen very quickly. With the current rate of fire, it's incredibly efficient. Simply put, hip-fire bullet spread of the TAR is way too tight, completely negating the role of the AR in close to medium range situations.
So now we have to ask ourselves what is appropriate bullet-spread. Again, the role of the TAR is medium-long range encounters using the dot sight, and the role of the AR should surpass the TAR in close and medium range situations. Since I have no idea how to quantify bullet spread over different ranges, the best way to describe what is appropriate would be to give an situation and tweak the bullet spread mechanics based upon that.
You are using the TAR and you want to find a different angle of attack. You rush forward, turn around a blind corner and an enemy is right there facing you, 10 meters away. It's far too close for the dot sight, so you tap the button as quickly as you can from hip fire. You kill the enemy, but take significant damage as well.
I believe that the TAR should definitely be reliable from hip-fire in those "Oh crap!" 0-15 meter confrontations, but should be increasingly unreliable beyond that point. A player should feel like it's pointless to attempt hip-firing from 30 meters or beyond.
But again, even with a reduced rate of fire and increased bullet spread at hip fire, players will still likely play the odds and fire at opponents from 30 meters and beyond considering only 6 - 8 of those shots need to hit their mark. The reason for this gamble is because there needs to be... |
Matakage
WildCard Ninja Clan
170
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 02:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
3. Reduced clip size.
Now, I know what you're thinking -- it's already 30. That's half the amount of the Duvolle AR clip size. But to that, I would ask this question:
Q: How many enemies can you kill with a single clip of a Duvolle Assault Rifle?
A:1, maybe 2, depending on their suit.
Most of us AR users reload after each kill, and even between each couple bursts of fire. However, think of those times when you are very close to your opponent, face to face, strafing, and need to unload as much as you can while your crosshair remains on your opponent as much as possible. It takes most of a clip. You might kill 2 with a single clip, but you're certainly not killing 3. Okay, stop. Are you satisfied with my anecdotal evidence? Cuz I'm not. Here are the numbers:
600 EHP Enemy vs. Duvolle AR: 600 / ~40 DMG = 15 bullets...?
Which takes how long? 750 bullets / 60 seconds = 15 bullets / x seconds
--> (15x60)=750x --> 900/750=x --> x = 1.2 seconds
This actually sounds about right. A second is a long time in battle. However, this assumes 100% accuracy, which nobody is with an AR. However, it's reasonable to assume that the accuracy in close quarters is much greater than a good statistical average of around 20%. Let's just say it takes about 1.5 seconds and about half a clip on a good day.
Now, to accurately compare the TAR with the AR in terms of enemies killed per clip, one needs to consider the nature of the weapon. By being semi-auto rather than fully automatic, the TAR somewhat encourages bullet conservation; you can only pull the trigger so fast, and you're less likely to pull it when your crosshair is not on your target. This differs pretty greatly from AR behavior, where holding the trigger and sweeping over your target can be pretty effective at most ranges.
So with the AR, you always reload after a kill, because if you started firing at the second guy you'd probably have to reload before you killed them. The TAR, on the other hand, only needs 6 - 8 bullets to hit, so blowing through all 30 bullets from hipfire at medium range is a pretty good tactic, especially considering the firing rate and bullet-spread from hip.
TAR 30 clip size \ 7 bullets to kill (@ 100% accuracy) = 4.3 enemies killed
AR 60 clip size \ 15 bullets to kill (@ 100% accuracy) = 4 enemies killed
Hey, did I just invalidate my own 'clip size' argument with math? You might think so, but now we must refer back to the role of the TAR and the first statement. I never had any problem with the range or damage of the TAR. But now you must ask yourself: Where is the anecdotal evidence for amount of kills per clip size, and how does that relate to the desired play style?
If we accept that 1-2 kills is suitable for an AR per clip size, then should we also accept that 1-2 kills is suitable for the TAR clip size? That's 15 bullets per clip, but I think 20 is more appropriate. When the TAR is used as intended, 20 bullets is enough to kill 2 targets before reloading. It is meant for precise shots, so 7/10 bullets hitting the mark is 70% accuracy. That sounds right for a tactical gun. Even with 50% accuracy, you're definitely getting 1 kill per clip. That's right on par with the AR. (Remember? You can kill 1 enemy, but probably not 2 before having to reload.) With a clip size of 30, you are encouraging hip-firing at medium range and giving an unncessary advantage to those using it correctly with the sights at long range.
To conclude, here are the 3 ways to nerf the TAR:
1. Reduced rate of fire so it cannot exceed the reasonable human extent of button-pressing speed. (ROF ~400)
2. Increased hip-fire bullet-spread so that an AR is by far a better option beyond 10-15 meters.
3. Reduced clip size to 20 to discourage rapid hip-firing and stay within 2 kills per clip size.
Thanks to all of you who read all of this! It took pretty much the whole day to make, so I appreciate it. I just want to see the TAR fulfilling its role as fairly as possible without making the AR role obsolete. I really hope my suggestions and evidence supporting those suggestions helps CCP apply changes as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Matakage |
Matakage
WildCard Ninja Clan
177
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 04:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Obodiah Garro wrote:Matakage wrote:TL/DR
Reduce the ROF and dismiss my other ludicrous points
I looked up TL;DR on the interweb and the definition was "I'm a slow reader."
Sorry to hear about that, by the way.
But actually, the ROF thing is a given. They're gonna change that no matter what because the point is too valid and other people have made it numerous times.
The real unique point that I was offering was the bullet-spread during hip fire. This is the most important thing to nerf, because it is what most over-shadows the unique role of the AR. The Tac AR should be better at longer ranges, and the AR should be better at close to medium ranges. This is not the case at the moment. The solution is increasing the bullet-spread during hip-fire. |
Matakage
WildCard Ninja Clan
177
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 04:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Furrow33 wrote:I wont lie. I use tac specifically because of its higher damage. Up close I get wiped out because I have trouble continuously pressing r1 and keeping sights on someone.
I'd say you're in the minority on that one. In my experience, the Tac AR absolutely demolishes at close range. |
Matakage
WildCard Ninja Clan
180
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 05:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Obodiah Garro wrote:
I disagree completely with your bullet-spread opinion. Dispersion is fine, what makes the TAC lethal at close range is the brutal DPS, which is completely controlled via the ROF.
You can point your hip-fire crosshairs at targets and reliably kill them at medium range. This replaces the role of the AR, thus it should be changed. I'm confident the ROF thing will be fixed, as it's pretty obviously a problem.
Obodiah Garro wrote:
Increasing dispersion would not make that much difference in CQC assuming your on top of the target, it also has the potential to look ridiculous. A good gamer will simply just pull up his aim to compensate so its a mute point.
I wish all your points were mute so I wouldn't have to bother responding to this nonsense. Increasing the dispersion does not make a difference in CQC, that's correct. I explicitly said that the TAR should be reliable from the 0-15 meter range. You must have missed that part. And yes, a good player could always use their dot sights in CQC. That's generally harder than firing from the hip, so that skill should be rewarded.
Obodiah Garro wrote:
If you reduce the damage per shot then it cannot function as a marksmen rifle, thus completely removing its intended role.
Now I'm conviced you didn't read my post. The very first thing I mentioned in bold was that the damage, optimal range, and maximum range should not be changed.
Obodiah Garro wrote:
Oh btw your definition was wrong, you should try and understand the concept before wailing on walls of text of nonsense.
As per debate etiquette, if the aforementioned definition cannot be agreed upon, then the argument shouldn't continue beyond that point. In other words, if you can't understand the implicit role of the Tactical AR based on its stats compared to other weapons, you're probably not equipped to participate in the conversation anyway. |
|
|
| |
|