| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
411
   |
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:34:00 -
[31] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Yes it is. 
Grow up.
Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:Che Cortez wrote:Kenderr, did he say 1-2 shots? Your assuming, that shield Nd armor wouldn't matter, if the Time to kill is decreased by tweaking weapons, dmg, spread and dispersion ( u can't just increase base dmg of the weapons collectively as they all have different factors and ways to be implemented, eg like lazer the dmg build up could be increased slightly rather than a dmg increase ) so shield and armor fitting would still make a difference. While stopping prolonged shoot outs, but a few further tweets would be required if this to be put in place.
Such as increased rep for armor repair tool, and shield regen rate. Plus many others
This might mean weapons get their functionally back, instead of the Tac AR being the best slayer. A Hmg pointed down a hallway 30m in length, a realistic fire lane, where this weapon should carve up, if the heavy can aim properly. It should hold its ground, stopping at least for a few seconds any advancing enemy, until they start to flank or get a MD to start lobbing volleys into the wall. But it doesn't happen, the AR can comfortably move into the hallway knowing that he can out DPS and take down the Heavy
I agree with OP, the Tac AR is OP cause it kills to fast, but I think it has appropriate TTK,
I know this won't happen but it's my 2 Another person with reading comprehension. Thank you. Lowering TTK while increasing regen rates is a viable mechanic with its own ups and downs but functionally identical to a CODification of the gameplay. Granted you don't spell it out but you are pretty much arguing for it.
"CODification". lol...
(English is a wonderful language isn't it. Enabling the coining of all sorts of words. Humor me more.)
Lower TTK doesn't necessarily need increased regen. With Dust, both depends on *gasp* your fitting.
As it stands however, defense capacities far exceed attack capacities in Dust. Proof of this is when you have two guys with ARs, spinning around in place emptying their clips at each other. 
Or when nova knives into someone's back does NOT kill them. Or when HMGs at point blank range, do NOT kill a fleeing dropsuit. Or when any gun short of a shotgun doesn't kill instantly on a point-blank headshot.
|
P Nasty
Bridge Nine Collective
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
My personal view is that the issue of the TAR is that yes, it puts people down too quickly. With the consequences of dying and losing cash in place plus all the upgrades we make to survivability, a weapon should not put someone down so fast. Hell I'm amazed SCARS work so fast when I view it more of am anti shield weapon. Everything should do less damage and be more specialized at the risk of alienating the "lone wolf" aspect.
No, the issue to discuss is the one you bring up in those reviews and is that gunplay feels clunky, especially up close. THATS is the issue, the movement, the aiming, the frame rate. These are things number adjustments can't fix. COD and BF are popular not only cause guns do what guns do but also because they move, aim, and FEEL right. Dust is a chore to get used to. At mid range it feels fine but close that gap and it all breaks down real fast. Point blank combat in the city type areas is abysmal. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:40:00 -
[33] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
Although this was not adressed to me i'd like to commend on the part i put in bold.
Firstly, Dust is not a simulation. It doesn't need to behave realistically. Appeals to real world intuition are moot when the game is not even trying to behave like the real world.
Would i it be realistic if any hit, from any weapon, to any point of the body makes you drop to ground screaming and cussing in pain until some medic gives you some morphine and carries you off the battlefield, making the character unavailable for the nex 8 weeks. Yes.
Would it be any fun. Probably not.
Realism is not balance. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
411
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
Che Cortez wrote:Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:
The whole argument is NOT built on such a premise. It is not wrong, nor is it invalid.
.
Comparisons were made with BF3, not for arguing that Dust be exactly like it, but for the sake of pointing out an error in Dust. Namely clunkiness of aim, and the absurd TTK in CQC.
Yes it is. Jathniel wrote:Che Cortez wrote:Kenderr, did he say 1-2 shots? Your assuming, that shield Nd armor wouldn't matter, if the Time to kill is decreased by tweaking weapons, dmg, spread and dispersion ( u can't just increase base dmg of the weapons collectively as they all have different factors and ways to be implemented, eg like lazer the dmg build up could be increased slightly rather than a dmg increase ) so shield and armor fitting would still make a difference. While stopping prolonged shoot outs, but a few further tweets would be required if this to be put in place.
Such as increased rep for armor repair tool, and shield regen rate. Plus many others
This might mean weapons get their functionally back, instead of the Tac AR being the best slayer. A Hmg pointed down a hallway 30m in length, a realistic fire lane, where this weapon should carve up, if the heavy can aim properly. It should hold its ground, stopping at least for a few seconds any advancing enemy, until they start to flank or get a MD to start lobbing volleys into the wall. But it doesn't happen, the AR can comfortably move into the hallway knowing that he can out DPS and take down the Heavy
I agree with OP, the Tac AR is OP cause it kills to fast, but I think it has appropriate TTK,
I know this won't happen but it's my 2 Another person with reading comprehension. Thank you. Lowering TTK while increasing regen rates is a viable mechanic with its own ups and downs but functionally identical to a CODification of the gameplay. Granted you don't spell it out but you are pretty much arguing for it. I've never played CoD, I came from Counter Strike (1.3 to source) and I'm not suggesting that Dust have a TTK like that. Only slight increased TTK
You mean reduced TTK. lol |
Che Cortez
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
Fixed :) |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
208
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:"CODification". lol... (English is a wonderful language isn't it. Enabling the coining of all sorts of words. Humor me more.) Lower TTK doesn't necessarily need increased regen. With Dust, both depends on *gasp* your fitting. As it stands however, defense capacities far exceed attack capacities in Dust. Proof of this is when you have two guys with ARs, spinning around in place emptying their clips at each other. Or when nova knives into someone's back does NOT kill them. Or when HMGs at point blank range, do NOT kill a fleeing dropsuit. Or when any gun short of a shotgun doesn't kill instantly on a point-blank headshot.
You describe the current reality of the gameplay in dust accurately. Yet i still fail to see any reasoning why it is bad.
Nova knifes might not kill someone. Ok. So?
HMGs do not shred everything at point blank. And the problem is?
Shotguns don't OHK heavily armored dudes. Your Point?
The gameplay works (somewhat) and is (somewhat) fun, spoiled mainly by the dominance of one single piece of gear. The tac is the culprit. Not the fighting mechanic as a whole. |
Cybus Trama'dol
EYE Security Task Force and Resources Acquisition
67
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:51:00 -
[37] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:Zeylon Rho wrote:I'm inclined to say that we're NOT supposed to be like Battlefield players in terms of taking hits, or any "modern" shooter. People are fleshbags, and they die easily. It makes sense that a blast of pretty much any weapon will kill someone in a game like Battlefield, because that's not unlike how things happen in real life.
Dust is different. We all have "dropsuits", which are fitted powered systems connected to a tactical netword, shields, and armor. Some suits even have "heavy armor". Further, we can take pains to improve our armor and shields at the base level, and install additional improvements to protect ourselves further. In a way, we're like mini-spaceships from EVE, outfitting ourselves for combat roles and trying to maximize our survival in many cases.
Weapons that have a Battlefield-like effect despite any of our modifications destroy this sort of balance and/or gameplay. If you die in a couple rounds regardless of your advancement, type of suit, and protective modifications - then any aspect of the "building your character" element is moot. You could just as easily do nothing with the suit, and just get the gun that allows you to do that.
Some weapons are intentionally lethal in very few shots, but they do so with certain trade-offs. Sniper rifles typically have a slow rate of fire, a very small clip, a scope that's inconvenient at short range, and abysmal hipfire. Shotguns can drop people quickly, but require you be very very close. Plasma Cannons will kill quickly, but are 1 shot at a time, arc-ing, slow, and only have 9 shots. Etc. etc.
TAR has needed some addressing because it does do that Battlefield bit, but does it with no real trade-offs. Short, long, precise scoped/hipfired... it is incredibly lethal, and combines those "general" all-round features with superiority at range, DPS, etc. So, it's sort of a perfect storm of flexibility, high damage, and being at the top tier in range.
I'd say you should be able to take a foe down fast... if they're lightly armored/shielded, you're head-shotting with certain weapons, etc. However, there's nothing wrong with gun battles taking more than a couple seconds. You're fighting people in armored suits, not fatigues. Finally. Someone that sees the point. I guess I failed to articulate properly. Your point is taken. These are clones within sophisticated armor/shield suits, but likewise their weapons are equally sophisticated. Lore has it, that some of a clone soldier's weapons are so powerful that they would kill a normal person, even if used properly. Hence why I linked to the other thread I made. I figure within 10m, there should be an augmented damage of about 50%, which drops off quickly to standard damage past 15m, and within 3m or so a damage boost of nearly 100%. Specifically to get rid of that pesky dancing in CQC, which apparently reflects badly on the game.
YES!
The two clip tango has to be addressed. The TTK mechanic is fine when you are at range.
But the main problem as you have pointed out that in CQC even with the correct weapon takes too long to put somebody down which just results in both players randomly jumping\strafing, sprayinig and reloading until either on of them goes down or a friend turns up and helps.
I think the idea of a close range damage buff would be a welcome addition. Too many times I have snuck up on an unsuspecting red dot to give him an SMG\Pistol spray to the back of the head. Often they are proto so they then turn around and get a lucky shot and I'm dead.
Also yeah the 1v1 dancing would end a lot quicker with these buffs in place.
I get the general point you are trying to get across but some people need to be spoonfed logic and then forced to swallow.
+1 from me |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
412
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
P Nasty wrote:My personal view is that the issue of the TAR is that yes, it puts people down too quickly. With the consequences of dying and losing cash in place plus all the upgrades we make to survivability, a weapon should not put someone down so fast. Hell I'm amazed SCARS work so fast when I view it more of am anti shield weapon. Everything should do less damage and be more specialized at the risk of alienating the "lone wolf" aspect.
No, the issue to discuss is the one you bring up in those reviews and is that gunplay feels clunky, especially up close. THATS is the issue, the movement, the aiming, the frame rate. These are things number adjustments can't fix. COD and BF are popular not only cause guns do what guns do but also because they move, aim, and FEEL right. Dust is a chore to get used to. At mid range it feels fine but close that gap and it all breaks down real fast. Point blank combat in the city type areas is abysmal.
Another one that gets the point.
In general, as much as I don't want the tactical to get adjusted, it probably does need SOME increase to it's ttk. This can be done with some rof adjustments perhaps. I supplied some stats days ago to try and address concerns people had with it.
But it does have a TTK far more appealing to gameplay then the other weapons. It should kill someone, only oh so slightly slower. Rebalancing it is something I hope CCP takes very seriously.
The lone wolf aspect is actually already totally alienated. A newbie comes into this game, and will learn quickly that the key to success for his team, is coordination with a squad of good players.
Dust vets on the other hand have the skill points and experience necessary to know how to solo a match. I see guys of every class capable of doing this. From Heavy, to Scout shotty, to assault, to tanker. A skilled, experience lone wolf, is not as good as an entire squad of skilled players, but he will always make a difference in match.
But the real meat and potatoes is exactly what you identified as well. There are no real good CQC mechanics in place. I proposed two levels of damage increase. Something that gradually kicks between 10-15m, and another that kicks in within 3m. Anything to eliminate that 10-year fighting time in CQC. It's unreasonable. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
412
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:00:00 -
[39] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:"CODification". lol... (English is a wonderful language isn't it. Enabling the coining of all sorts of words. Humor me more.) Lower TTK doesn't necessarily need increased regen. With Dust, both depends on *gasp* your fitting. As it stands however, defense capacities far exceed attack capacities in Dust. Proof of this is when you have two guys with ARs, spinning around in place emptying their clips at each other. Or when nova knives into someone's back does NOT kill them. Or when HMGs at point blank range, do NOT kill a fleeing dropsuit. Or when any gun short of a shotgun doesn't kill instantly on a point-blank headshot. You describe the current reality of the gameplay in dust accurately. Yet i still fail to see any reasoning why it is bad. Nova knifes might not kill someone. Ok. So?
HMGs do not shred everything at point blank. And the problem is?
Shotguns don't OHK heavily armored dudes. Your Point?The gameplay works (somewhat) and is (somewhat) fun, spoiled mainly by the dominance of one single piece of gear. The tac is the culprit. Not the fighting mechanic as a whole.
>_> |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
412
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:06:00 -
[40] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
Although this was not adressed to me i'd like to commend on the part i put in bold. Firstly, Dust is not a simulation. It doesn't need to behave realistically. Appeals to real world intuition are moot when the game is not even trying to behave like the real world. Would i it be realistic if any hit, from any weapon, to any point of the body makes you drop to ground screaming and cussing in pain until some medic gives you some morphine and carries you off the battlefield, making the character unavailable for the nex 8 weeks. Yes. Would it be any fun. Probably not. Realism is not balance.
I don't follow.
I haven't requested realism. Just that aiming and CQC-TTK mechanics better be adjusted. Guns are deadly up close. Just the gases released from a revolver can blow your finger off.
But god forbid I ask for that kind of realism. No my friend, smoothness of gameplay is my aim.
I simply used BF3 and the tactical AR's proficiency as an example of weapon smoothness, potency, and ease of use. |
|
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
412
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:14:00 -
[41] - Quote
Cosgar's Alt wrote:Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
If you're going to lead me into a trap, allow me to answer your question with another question: Should a plasma based weapon have more incidental damage than a solid ammunition based weapon at maximum range? Should phased plasma out range laser pulses? Should one weapon class reap the rewards of all racial takes on the weapon but not share in any of its weaknesses?
No traps intended.
You and I have agreed on many things in the past. You should know I'm not aiming for any traps or puns.
The first two questions require techno-babble answers that will lead me off-topic.
The last question is a straight-up "No. There are balances that we want to maintain."
I do mean, that the tactical does things RIGHT, that we should consider as positives for other weapons to have and follow. TTK in CQC, and ease and smoothness of use being the main things.
It does need it's adjustments, but between comparisons to similar weapons in BF3, the IGN review, and the absurdity of CQC in Dust currently, it feels better better balanced overall than every other weapon. (Until, you throw 4-5 damage mods on it of course.) That's all my point was. I guess I was just a little too long-winded about it. |
ZDub 303
TeamPlayers
EoN.
270
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
Damage in cqc is fine as it is. Have you ever snuck behind someone who isn't moving and put every bullet into them with a not tac ar weapon? They go down in an instant.
Don't buff cqc damage, buff cqc hit detection.
For some reason, the tac just seems to experience better hit detection than most auto guns, I don't why... |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
412
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:27:00 -
[43] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:Damage in cqc is fine as it is. Have you ever snuck behind someone who isn't moving and put every bullet into them with a not tac ar weapon? They go down in an instant.
Don't buff cqc damage, buff cqc hit detection.
For some reason, the tac just seems to experience better hit detection than most auto guns, I don't why...
And what about the ones that ARE moving?
That's when we start having as someone said, "the two-clip tango". That inability for CQC to be decided quickly and efficiently, either because of hit detection OR damage, is really awkward. |
Malkai Inos
The Vanguardians
Orion Empire
209
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:46:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
Although this was not adressed to me i'd like to commend on the part i put in bold. Firstly, Dust is not a simulation. It doesn't need to behave realistically. Appeals to real world intuition are moot when the game is not even trying to behave like the real world. Would i it be realistic if any hit, from any weapon, to any point of the body makes you drop to ground screaming and cussing in pain until some medic gives you some morphine and carries you off the battlefield, making the character unavailable for the nex 8 weeks. Yes. Would it be any fun. Probably not. Realism is not balance. I don't follow. I haven't requested realism. Just that aiming and CQC-TTK mechanics better be adjusted. Guns are deadly up close. Just the gases released from a revolver can blow your finger off. But god forbid I ask for that kind of realism. No my friend, smoothness of gameplay is my aim. I simply used BF3 and the tactical AR's proficiency as an example of weapon smoothness, potency, and ease of use.
I can see where you're coming from and i think i understand now what you're asking for.
It becomes apparent to me though, that we won't agree on this subject as i don't share your vision of what constitutes the best shooting mechanics. We would argue in circles until we annoy each other and i prefer to go passive before this happens. I will still keep an eye for out inspiring arguments that i can use against you though.
Fly saf- oh wait...Be well.  |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
413
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:52:00 -
[45] - Quote
Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:Malkai Inos wrote:Jathniel wrote:
I'm not defending the TAR so much so as I'm drawing a complaint against clunkiness of controls and TTK in CQC mechanics.
The TAR, with it's current iteration, compensates for Dust's failure in both of these aspects.
In it's role, it drops them fast. In CQC, it drops them fast.
Should it be doing this in CQC? Probably not, but if you can hit the person why not? Should other weapons like the breach ar, full-auto, and HMG be doing that? Absolutely. Do they? No.
Should someone survive a headshot from a sniper rifle when the rifle is literally 3 inches from their head? You decide.
Should someone survive a shotgun blast 3 inches from their chest? You decide.
But if you say yes to either of those, you have a very misconstrued viewpoint of balance.
Although this was not adressed to me i'd like to commend on the part i put in bold. Firstly, Dust is not a simulation. It doesn't need to behave realistically. Appeals to real world intuition are moot when the game is not even trying to behave like the real world. Would i it be realistic if any hit, from any weapon, to any point of the body makes you drop to ground screaming and cussing in pain until some medic gives you some morphine and carries you off the battlefield, making the character unavailable for the nex 8 weeks. Yes. Would it be any fun. Probably not. Realism is not balance. I don't follow. I haven't requested realism. Just that aiming and CQC-TTK mechanics better be adjusted. Guns are deadly up close. Just the gases released from a revolver can blow your finger off. But god forbid I ask for that kind of realism. No my friend, smoothness of gameplay is my aim. I simply used BF3 and the tactical AR's proficiency as an example of weapon smoothness, potency, and ease of use. I can see where you're coming from and i think i understand now what you're asking for. It becomes apparent to me though, that we won't agree on this subject as i don't share your vision of what constitutes the best shooting mechanics. We would argue in circles until we annoy each other and i prefer to go passive before this happens. I will still keep an eye for out inspiring arguments that i can use against you though. Fly saf- oh wait...Be well.
lol 
Whatever man. But it's fine I guess. It's not a popular viewpoint. I blame the misunderstandings that people had on my poor articulation. |
kenderr cillo
Grupo de Asalto Chacal
CRONOS.
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:56:00 -
[46] - Quote
Che Cortez wrote:Kenderr, did he say 1-2 shots? Your assuming, that shield Nd armor wouldn't matter, if the Time to kill is decreased by tweaking weapons, dmg, spread and dispersion ( u can't just increase base dmg of the weapons collectively as they all have different factors and ways to be implemented, eg like lazer the dmg build up could be increased slightly rather than a dmg increase ) so shield and armor fitting would still make a difference. While stopping prolonged shoot outs, but a few further tweets would be required if this to be put in place.
Such as increased rep for armor repair tool, and shield regen rate. Plus many others
This might mean weapons get their functionally back, instead of the Tac AR being the best slayer. A Hmg pointed down a hallway 30m in length, a realistic fire lane, where this weapon should carve up, if the heavy can aim properly. It should hold its ground, stopping at least for a few seconds any advancing enemy, until they start to flank or get a MD to start lobbing volleys into the wall. But it doesn't happen, the AR can comfortably move into the hallway knowing that he can out DPS and take down the Heavy
I agree with OP, the Tac AR is OP cause it kills to fast, but I think it has appropriate TTK,
I know this won't happen but it's my 2
Yes he did. Also u are doing it too.
The best part of this game is fitting, u have to choose what u want, more hp, less spd, less dmg, more shield, less armour. U want to kill a person fast? fit 3 or 4 damage modules. But dont pretend to make this game a copy of Battlefield.
The TAR is extremely op right now and must be changed.
|
Cosgar's Alt
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:57:00 -
[47] - Quote
Jathniel wrote:
No traps intended.
You and I have agreed on many things in the past. You should know I'm not aiming for any traps or puns.
The first two questions require techno-babble answers that will lead me off-topic.
The last question is a straight-up "No. There are balances that we want to maintain."
I do mean, that the tactical does things RIGHT, that we should consider as positives for other weapons to have and follow. TTK in CQC, and ease and smoothness of use being the main things.
It does need it's adjustments, but between comparisons to similar weapons in BF3, the IGN review, and the absurdity of CQC in Dust currently, it feels better better balanced overall than every other weapon. (Until, you throw 4-5 damage mods on it of course.) That's all my point was. I guess I was just a little too long-winded about it.
You need to be careful how you get your point across in regards to the TAR. It's a sore subject for a lot of players on both sides of the weapon. I see what you're getting at, but in the current state the AR class is in as an amalgamation of different racial weapons, it's hard to resort to what could be considered as an "easy fix." Everyone has their own interpretations of how the weapon should operate, and I still stand by the point that it destroys the other variants in the AR line and it's intended use has gone askew to exploitative levels. I would actually be using the weapon on my main character since my real primary has been nerfed to uselessness, but the negative stigma attached to the TAR deters me from it. On top of that, I already represent the other half of the FotM as a logi. Not the OP Caldari, mind you, but the Minmatar that gets lumped into the nerf witch hunt since people don't understand simple things like base stats and racial bonuses.
Back on topic though, changes need to be made to the TAR until the other racial weapons come out. Whatever changes we all suggest, CCP will always have the final say and we'll have to deal with them whether it's rebalanced flawlessly or goes the route of the laser and MD. I disagree with your points only because I believe there's a different way. |
Muramasa Armads
Defensores Doctrina
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 14:25:00 -
[48] - Quote
[quote=Jathniel]I've been using the tactical assault rifle for a while. I even used it in it's "broken" state during Chromosome, just because I loved the weapon that much. Or at least, I loved the functionality that I felt it should have.
I've noticed that the tactical assault rifle has gotten a LOT of hate from the players. But this isn't for any other reason other than because it works. Properly. As intended.
This post isn't ABOUT the tactical assault rifle. It's going to be about the sense of balance that apparently the majority of us have.
I'm not a huge fan of CoD, but I do like Battlefield 3. So I will be drawing some comparisons between the Dust and BF3.
I don't hate it because it works, but because it's a master of all trades. What significant weakness does the Tactical Assault Rifle have? The answer is none. It's less effective at close range, but so are most weapons right now. Dust 514 battles most of the time are mid to long range which favors the Tactical AR. It has long optimum range which allows it to destroy all the other weapons. Last build the Viziam Laser Rifle was the most over powered weapon, but at least it had a significant weakness. Laser Rifles were worthless at close range and only dominated the Manus Peaks map. Most veteran laser rifles were also stationary which meant that they stay in one general area on a map. You could avoid laser rifles if you wanted to on certain maps. This is a key difference between the Viziam Laser Rifle and the Tac AR. The Tac AR allows the user greater mobility which allows them to roam the whole map and it can be used effectively on all the maps. It also is more lethal with squads because no other guns can produce the focus fire of multiple Tac AR's. That's why you see so many 6 man squads using them. |
Muramasa Armads
Defensores Doctrina
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 14:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
Play a game like Battlefield 3. Every weapon is a pleasure to use. You can down someone with a sniper rifle, just as quickly as with an AK. A bolt action will nearly 1-shot someone. Submachine guns are very potent in close quarters. Your life expectancy when under fire is realistically low. In BF3, you can and will be killed, depending on how your team works. No particular weapon stands out as totally superior to every other, and YET every weapon class still has it's applicable role.
And aiming is a dream in that game. Gamepads are dominant (because its the only thing supported), but KB/M guys are able to use niche items like the Eagle Eye to play as well. Yet BF3 thrives. (The biggest debate ive seen with BF3 was with whether or not stingers should shoot down fighter jets.)
I have to disagree with your portrayal of BF3 weapon balance. BF3 has some of the worst weapon balance I have seen in a FPS. The key is that BF3 has multiple OP guns instead of just one that dominates them all. I used to be a hard core BF3 player, so I can tell you that Dice has a very lazy weapon model. The guns with the highest ROF dominate the others and it's not even close. The best class was Assault because the Assault Rifles were the best guns in the game. The game was fun to play, but it did have serious imbalance issues.
I agree completely that aiming is incredible in BF3. It's very smooth and allows you excellent control. CCP should be forced to play BF3, so that they can see what a real aiming system is.
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
414
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 15:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
Muramasa Armads wrote:Dust 514 is eating my posts.
Jathniel in response to your post.
I don't hate it because it works, but because it's a master of all trades. What significant weakness does the Tactical Assault Rifle have? The answer is none. It's less effective at close range, but so are most weapons right now. Dust 514 battles most of the times are mid to long range which favors the Tactical AR. It has long optimum range which allows it to destroy all the other weapons. Last build the Viziam Laser Rifle was the most over powered weapon, but at least it had a significant weakness. Laser Rifles were worthless at close range and only dominated the Manus Peaks map. Most veteran laser rifles were also stationary which meant that they stay in one general area on a map. You could avoid laser rifles if you wanted to on certain maps. This is a key difference between the Viziam Laser Rifle and the Tac AR. The Tac AR allows the user greater mobility which allows them to roam the whole map and it can be used effectively on all the maps. It also is more lethal with squads because no other guns can produce the focus fire of multiple Tac AR's. That's why you see so many 6 man squads using them.
This is true. It has no weakness. Hopefully, that will be address on the 4th. The Tac AR is supposed to be a precision shooter, I still think the potency of other weapons can be better balanced against it vs. it be balanced against the rest, through the introduction of a variable CQC damage bonus.
With the hip fire spread nerf it will receive, it will no longer shine flawlessly... except in the hands of those that are really passionate about it. :)
If other weapons were as effective as it, then I doubt we'd even have so many anti-TAR threads. That's really part of what my point was. A full auto AR just will NOT down someone as potently as a TAR, even in it's niche. I think the problem is with the regular AR (and other so-called CQ weapons), since that's the gun that "two-clip tangos" happen with. That shouldn't happen. So I proposed a variable range damage buff |
|
|
P Nasty
Bridge Nine Collective
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 18:17:00 -
[51] - Quote
If the shooting and aiming in this game felt less like D-list "my first fps" mechanics, you'd see other weapons be just as effective in CQC since you'd actually be able to land the shots needed. When my aim is on point and I land headshots, a high RPM AR puts anyone down right quick.
LANDING those shots (or any) is a whole another story though.
Yes, tone its damage down to encourage more use of other weapon trees but the problem is that everything just sucks to use, the TAC just seems like the best solution by being a strong jack of all trades (which a game like this doesn't need). Its the only option that feels right or familiar to a lot of people. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |