DUST Search - [Feedback] Weapon Ranges

Pseudonym0 wrote:

I'll use an example of a weapon which I've unfortunately now wasted a considerable number of skill points on because it is in all ways inferior.

The mass driver was a weapon which caused radius damage, but required a very close blast to do significant damage, had a low ROF, very slow reload, very limited ammo, required the user to gauge range and loft, and was often ineffective in uneven terrain, but had the ability to hit multiple opponents and do high burst damage per shot if used properly. It's blast radius is now so minimal as to make it virtually a direct fire weapon which still has all the limitations of it's previous incarnation. It is now almost incapable of damaging an enemy behind cover, is practically useless at middle range, and has no area denial component as people generally ignore the blasts going off near them. It's still capable of causing considerable close range damage, but not effectively more than it's counterparts which don't require the user to lead their target (because they are hit-scan weapons), and have vastly superior rates of fire, ammo capacities, and reload speeds.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 572	Posted - 2013.06.01 17:57:00 - [1] - Quote Looking through the weapon ranges in this thread was depressing to be perfectly honest. Weapons that should be mid to long range (or straight up long range) have such low optimals that they're actually considered pure mid range weapons (Tactical Assault Rifle with 65 optimal and 100 max range and Laser Rifle with 62-80 optimal and 84 max range). CCP is planning to add some sort of falloff damage at max range to push the range further out (as I understand it). From what I can tell they won't change the optimal ranges on weapons though. I really feel that something needs to be done with both max ranges as well as optimal ranges on most of the weapons. The reason for the need for longer max and optimal ranges is that all the current maps seem to be made for mid to long range fights, or even long range fights, but all the weapons are short to mid range. This leads to a lot of situations where enemies just stand there and look at each other unable to shoot each other. Therefore I'll be doing some guidelines as to what kind of ranges, both max and optimal ranges, I would like to see some of the weapons to have. Feel free to make comments if you think something should be different. All the below numbers will be based on the Prototype versions: Sidearms: SMG: Current optimal: 22m. My suggestion: 40m. Current max: 44m. My suggestion: 60m. Scrambler Pistol: Current optimal: 21m. My suggestion: 40m. Current max: 57m. My suggestion: 60m. Light Weapons: Assault Rifle: Current optimal: 42m. My suggestion: 45m. Current max: 71m. My suggestion: 70m. Tactical Assault Rifle: Current optimal: 65m. My suggestion: 80m. Current max: 100m. My suggestion: 120m. Scrambler Rifle: Current optimal: 48m. My suggestion: 70m. Current max: 87m. My suggestion: 110m. Assault Scrambler Rifle: Current optimal: 30m. My suggestion: 60m. Current max. 76m. My suggestion: 90m. Laser Rifle: Current optimal: 62-80m. My suggestion: 70-100m. Current max: 84m. My suggestion: 130m. Heavy Weapons: HMG: Current optimal: 33m. My suggestion: 35m. Current max: 54m. My suggestion: 65m.
Berserker007 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 300	Posted - 2013.06.01 19:12:00 - [2] - Quote id have to disagree w/ the TAR-SCR ranges. SCR should outdistance the TAR, based on the weapon it is. From CCP Remnant saying it as: AR's = close range Mini ARs = close-mid SCR=mid LR = mid- long By that, i dont see how under any condition a TAR should outrange a SCR. Maybe let it be = to it, but never exceed it
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 572	Posted - 2013.06.01 19:36:00 - [3] - Quote Berserker007 wrote: id have to disagree w/ the TAR-SCR ranges. SCR should outdistance the TAR, based on the weapon it is. From CCP Remnant saying it as: AR's = close range Mini ARs = close-mid SCR=mid LR = mid- long By that, i dont see how under any condition a TAR should outrange a SCR. Maybe let it be = to it, but never exceed it Per Remnant's post here, then yeah, we would have Assault Rifle = short range. Combat Rile = short to mid range. Scrambler Rifle = mid range. Rail Rifle = long range. On top of that we could have variants of each that try to "mimic" the other racial rifles. Currently we have the Assault Scrambler Rifle that try to mimic the Assault Rifle, though it won't be able to do as much damage as the Assault Rifle. On the other hand it would have slightly more range to compensate. Then the Tactical Assault Rifle try to mimic the Scrambler Rifle, though it won't be able to have as much range as the Scrambler Rifle. Instead it could do slightly more damage to compensate (no overheating is also + for the Tactical though). So yeah, less or similar range on the Tactical Assault Rifle versus the Scrambler Rifle would probably be a good thing. I'll go edit the numbers on it. On another note here are my suggestions as to what kind of ranges the Combat Rifle and Rail Rifle should have: Combat Rifle: Optimal: 60m. Max: 95m. Rail Rifle: Optimal: 90m. Max: 150m.
Talos Alomar Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 862	Posted - 2013.06.01 20:36:00 - [4] - Quote +1'ing so hard right now. I love the idea of bringing the sidearm's ranges out a bit. I'd even say add 5 to 10 more meters to the scrambler pistol, though.
Lichsmash RN Quackery Labs Roid Addicts 4	Posted - 2013.06.01 20:52:00 - [5] - Quote ccp is adding to the optimal of the SCR alongside the TAC changes no word on exact details but from what i have learned on what they consider mid to long range it may be around 65 optimal for the meta one version advanced at 68 and proto at 72-75
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 583	Posted - 2013.06.01 21:05:00 - [6] - Quote Lichsmash RN wrote: ccp is adding to the optimal of the SCR alongside the TAC changes no word on exact details but from what i have learned on what they consider mid to long range it may be around 65 optimal for the meta one version advanced at 68 and proto at 72-75 I can promise you right now that they will certainly not push the Scrambler Rifle optimal from 48 to 72-75 (Prototype version) Also the Scrambler Rifle is meant to be a mid range weapon, not a mid to long range weapon, in which case they will push the optimal from 48 to something like 55, maybe 60 if we're talking extreme cases here.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 583	Posted - 2013.06.01 21:07:00 - [7] - Quote Talos Alomar wrote: +1'ing so hard right now. I love the idea of bringing the sidearm's ranges out a bit. I'd even say add 5 to 10 more meters to the scrambler pistol, though. I didn't want to do something overly extreme for now. I think the numbers I proposed in the OP would be a very good start. There can always be made further minor changes later, but I certainly agree with you that longer ranges would be a good thing.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 592	Posted - 2013.06.04 06:00:00 - [8] - Quote Obviously there has to be more balance changes on all the weapons besides changing the ranges. For example the Assault Rifle should be a high damage weapon, and the Assault Scrambler Rifle should be a more range and less damage weapon (this is currently not the case). This thread just focuses exclusively on the range of the weapons.
Thurak1 Psygod9 RISE of LEGION 6	Posted - 2013.06.04 06:11:00 - [9] - Quote It would also be really nice if the range of the weapon was somewhere in the information of the weapon.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 592	Posted - 2013.06.04 07:49:00 - [10] - Quote Thurak1 wrote: It would also be really nice if the range of the weapon was somewhere in the information of the weapon. Absolutely this as well. Players need to know what the weapon can do before skilling into it.

EnIgMa99 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 393	Posted - 2013.06.04 14:55:00 - [11] - Quote more range, needs much more range on all the guns.
OZAROW Elements Of Death Elite 26	Posted - 2013.06.04 15:16:00 - [12] - Quote Buddy u never even mentioned the shotgun
Mike Poole Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 111	Posted - 2013.06.04 15:47:00 - [13] - Quote What they need to do above all else is get rid of the damn hard stop outside the max range. they can keep saying "soon" all they want but until they get off their asses and actually release a fix this game is ****. It's pathetic that if you're trying to shoot at someone 51 meters away, even if you have them dead in your sights, you do ** for damage because sorry your max range is just 50 meters and your bullets evaporate at dust once they've traveled too far.
Pseudonym0 Free Guard of Arrakis 1	Posted - 2013.06.04 17:11:00 - [14] - Quote I'm not entirely sure why they chose to alter the range mechanic in the first place. In my personal opinion it was the least imbalanced aspect of the weapons. What needed to be addressed were damage/ROF mechanics and accuracy, and as far as I can tell all of these have been adjusted in the wrong direction. And besides all of this, I've still been unable to ascertain just what a metre is in this game, since it seems to change depending on what mechanic it applies to (e.g. run speed and blast radius are definitely less than a metre, whereas range is considerably more). I'll use an example of a weapon which I've unfortunately now wasted a considerable number of skill points on because it is in all ways inferior. The mass driver was a weapon which caused radius damage, but required a very close blast to do significant damage, had a low ROF, very slow reload, very limited ammo, required the user to gauge range and loft, and was often ineffective in uneven terrain, but had the ability to hit multiple opponents and do high burst damage per shot if used properly. It's blast radius is now so minimal as to make it virtually a direct fire weapon which still has all the limitations of it's previous incarnation. It is now almost incapable of damaging an enemy behind cover, is practically useless at middle range, and has no area denial component as people generally ignore the blasts going off near them. It's still capable of causing considerable close range damage, but not effectively more than it's counterparts which don't require the user to lead their target (because they are hit-scan weapons), and have vastly superior rates of fire, ammo capacities, and reload speeds. By contrast, the assault rifle class is cheaper to skill into, cheaper to buy, sacrifices less CPU/PG, and is superior at most ranges and at least equal at close range. This is just one example, but it leads me to question why CCP bothered keeping some of these weapons in the game, if the only effect is to make many of us spend exorbitant amounts of skill points on them only to discover we should have gone with the considerably cheaper AR.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 593	Posted - 2013.06.04 17:25:00 - [15] - Quote OZAROW wrote: Buddy u never even mentioned the shotgun There's several weapons I didn't mention. But the Shotgun doesn't really need any major range changes.
Mike Poole Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 117	Posted - 2013.06.04 17:50:00 - [16] - Quote Pseudonym0 wrote: I'll use an example of a weapon which I've unfortunately now wasted a considerable number of skill points on because it is in all ways inferior. The mass driver was a weapon which caused radius damage, but required a very close blast to do significant damage, had a low ROF, very slow reload, very limited ammo, required the user to gauge range and loft, and was often ineffective in uneven terrain, but had the ability to hit multiple opponents and do high burst damage per shot if used properly. It's blast radius is now so minimal as to make it virtually a direct fire weapon which still has all the limitations of it's previous incarnation. It is now almost incapable of damaging an enemy behind cover, is practically useless at middle range, and has no area denial component as people generally ignore the blasts going off near them. It's still capable of causing considerable close range damage, but not effectively more than it's counterparts which don't require the user to lead their target (because they are hit-scan weapons), and have vastly superior rates of fire, ammo capacities, and reload speeds. That's the thing about the MD. It's a pain of a weapon to use but once you took those weaknesses into account it had it's niche and it did extraordinarily well within that niche. Now all you have is a slow to fire, slow to reload, slow projectile speed, small ineffective blast radius weapon. The only niche I've found for it now is in close combat because at any other range between the projectile speed, radius and slim chance of the explosions actually occurring where you've aimed the best the weapon can do is let you spam explosions right at someone's feet and even then it can take an entire magazine to get enough hits registered to actually kill someone.
EnIgMa99 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 394	Posted - 2013.06.04 18:50:00 - [17] - Quote Bendtner92 wrote: The reason for the need for longer max and optimal ranges is that all the current maps seem to be made for mid to long range fights, or even long range fights, but all the weapons are short to mid range. This leads to a lot of situations where enemies just stand there and look at each other unable to shoot each other.
Pseudonym0 Free Guard of Arrakis 2	Posted - 2013.06.05 18:32:00 - [18] - Quote EnIgMa99 wrote: Bendtner92 wrote: The reason for the need for longer max and optimal ranges is that all the current maps seem to be made for mid to long range fights, or even long range fights, but all the weapons are short to mid range. This leads to a lot of situations where enemies just stand there and look at each other unable to shoot each other. Sorry for the double quote, but this does raise an issue prevalent in more weapons than this. Maps which previously were designed mainly for mid-long range combat have been even further increased, and even many of those with urban environments now have large exterior areas where much of the fighting occurs due to spawn mechanics and command point placement. Even take the shotgun for instance....I'm sure there's not too many people who will argue that it's underpowered at the close range it is intended for, it still inflicts considerable damage. However, the passive bonus it gives is a reduction to "spread". Anyone who has used the weapon fairly consistently knows that spread is and always has been a misnomer, the weapon does not hit without the target being directly in the centre of the crosshairs, and it has never been possible to hit multiple opponents. Thus the only effect of the skill is to increase it's damage over range (still at very limited ranges and with very minimal damage at max range). It's only real benefit was the ability to take down a tough opponent you had already softened up almost to death and was trying to retreat to heal or to cause a little screen shake when you're running in on someone. The hard range cap makes both of these basically impossible, and makes a weapon which takes considerable skill points to acquire (comparable to the MD) , and makes it a niche weapon which serves little purpose on a lot of maps, especially with the logi suit that I use it with since there's no sidearm. If they wanted to increase the range falloff a bit, fine, but a very short hard cap was a bad idea given the map layouts. Sorry if I deviated a little off topic.
PADDEHATPIGEN BurgezzE.T.F 27	Posted - 2013.06.05 19:28:00 - [19] - Quote I think we can expect to se both short and long range weapons for all races. In Eve it is like this: Armar: short-mid range: Eve Pulse lasers = Dust SR. Amar mid-long range: Eve beam lasers = Dust LR. Minmatar short-mid reange: Eve auto cannons = Dust CR Minmatar mid-long range: Eve artillery cannons = Dust ArtR Caldary and Gallante both use hybrid weapons. Short-mid range: Eve blasters = Dust AR Mid- long range: Eve railguns = Dust RR But in Eve we also have diffent kinds of ammo that gives + to dmg and - to range, and also + to range and - to dmg. We also have 4 kinds of dmg, and 4 kinds of resist in both shield and armor, ( Em-Explosive-kinetic-Thermal ) Ammo and resist modules can be altered to do what you want (almost) SO in Eve we can tamper with range and dmg. We cant do this in Dust so far.
Pseudonym0 Free Guard of Arrakis 2	Posted - 2013.06.06 15:32:00 - [20] - Quote Not sure if you'll see things such as multiple damage models any time soon in Dust, if ever. I don't know it there's any comment from CCP on the topic but it seems it would take an awful lot to institute. e.g. if Thermal ammo is available, does that also mean that Minmatar suits will have an inherent weakness to Thermal? Will I then be able to purchase modules for armor and shield resistance? Since there's no capacitor in Dust, and controllers have a limited number of buttons, active resistance modules aren't really practical, so everything would have passive resistances, which are generally weaker. Any ammo changing mechanic would probably be pretty cumbersome. And constantly fighting any of 16 different people means you could encounter any type of damage or resistance at any time. Seems there's a lot that could go wrong here.



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