Rifleman Archive
Thread: Riflemen & Pistoleers: I know you're both here, so read it!
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=pistoleer&message.id=17541
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=carabineer&message.id=7110
Pistols want thier accuracy at 60m so they cant be kited by rifleman even if they are horribally inaccurate while moving.
What i feel is unfair is that we cant kite them at 60 but if they in 20m they can kite us because we have no way toallow use to get back into optimum rage. I see it asdouble edged sword atm but its edged only against the rifleman.
Noware there mitigate factors to keep the way the accuracy system is the atm? thats the real argument... I felt it was fair when we had the same speed cap since we missed more often but hit harderbut as 3 times slower we miss more often are slower but have some more dmg, plus higher HAM costs, soI dont think we are compinsated enough to allow pistoliers to have accuracy supremacy. Just my opinion
Okay, this is the issue that spun Pistoleers and Riflemen out of control. . . maybe, just maybe, I can say something here to keep this thread from going nuts as well.
First off, despite the warm recognition and great attitude I have been shown by many of the Pistoleer forum regulars, allow me to say that I do feel that Pistols have a accuracy advantage over rifles.
It's not a question of whether Pistols or Rifles are more accurate at 60 meters. It's a question of whether Pistols are as inaccurate at 60 meters are Rifles are at 0 meters.
There, I said it. If some of the good-hearted Pistoleers that came over to this thread are upset with me now, well, so be it. But the breakdown is decisively simple. In terms of accuracy, this is how it just about HAS to be to retain any sort of combat balance:
Pistols should be outstanding at close ranges, usable at medium ranges, and tragicly awful at long ranges.
Carbines should be terrible at point blank ranges, superb at medium ranges, and highly dubious at long ranges.
Rifles should be pathetic at close ranges, tolerable at medium ranges, and devestating at long ranges.
As it is, most melee MOBs try to move into close range anyhow. That's where most of the fighting takes place. I think what Riflemen SHOULD have been saying, and just weren't because we were angry and upset, is that we feel as though Pistols should be as bad at long range as WE ARE at close range.
Does that mean that they should NERF Pistol range or jack Rifle range? I don't know. How do the numbers actually break down? I don't know. Is it possible that things are actually working out the way they are supposed to? I don't know. It doesn't seem that way to me, but it wouldn't be the first time in the past half hour or so I'd been wrong about something (and if you don't believe me, I can put my boss on and she'll tell you).
I don't have enough data to say "We need to nerf this!" or "We need to upgrade that!" And I think in a lot of ways, this is what Noules was talking about when we said we need to know what our roles are. That above listing could be COMPLETELY WRONG. Maybe the accuracies ARE working as the Devs want them to, and we are all being too shallow and simplistic in our conceptualization of range. Maybe what I've stated above, what most people in the game take for granted, is NOT THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPERS.
I don't know for sure. But we do need to know what we SHOULD be doing. And I base those statements on the "range mods" set on the weaponry and the real-life comparisons of the gun classes. These are not the best things to use as standards, though. We need an answer before we can say for sure WHO should be like WHAT. But if the above model is correct, something is out of alignment. Having played all three gun classes, I can tell you that without a doubt in my mind.
Some raw number comparisons wouldn't hurt, of course. Comparing the Pistol far-range to the rifle close-range. And regardless of whether those results hurt or help Riflemen, my class, I'm willing to work with them. We all need to be. We need to know who we are.
Well Aden here's my thoughts:
I agree that right now rifles are too inaccurate. I think there are several possible ways to fix the issue: (1) as you said, make pistols as inaccurate as rifles, (2) make rifles as accurate as pistols, or (3) something in between.
Personally I have no problem with the idea that rifles should be more accurate at long range than pistols. I do think, however, the DEGREE to which they should be superior is a matter of debate. Personally I'd like to see rifles get far MORE accuracy than they have now at shorter range and then a modest reduction for pistols at long range. This way there is an advantage for rifles at long range and an advantage for pistols at short range but the advantage is not huge. Why? For two reasons. First, I think that if pistols are super inaccurate outside of short range we'll be kite material and I don't want to be kited. Second, I think that if we can't be accurate outside of short range we'll get pwned in PvE. Right now pure Pistoleers (not BHs)already have enough problems in PvE and if they get a major accuracy reduction that forces them to get up close to mobs, they'll need to be improved significantly in many other areas to make up for that.
I think all the bickering about accuracy was caused by the way Aldeon proposed the issue. He first called for a hard range cap, which meant we could be kited endlessly. Then he made that his top priority, to the exclusion of other issues. If he had asked for 2.5 melee to be removed, HAM costs to be lowered, and then had a reasonable accuracy change -- maybe 20% more for rifles and 20% lower for pistols, there would have been a lot less yelling and screaming on both sides.
Aden,
Three points:
Aldeon says he has logs of master riflemen and master pistoleers, firing at between 15m and 60m, basically showing the same accuracy at all ranged. Rifles are NOT that inaccurate at close range, is his argument. Is he wrong?
Pistols should be outstanding at close ranges, usable at medium ranges, and tragicly awful at long ranges.
Carbines should be terrible at point blank ranges, superb at medium ranges, and highly dubious at long ranges.
Rifles should be pathetic at close ranges, tolerable at medium ranges, and devestating at long ranges.
-----------
The reality is like this, and its what makes sense to us:
Pistols: least effective ranged weapon attacks, least vulnerable to melee
Carbines: mid-range effective attacks, vulnerable to melee
Rifes: Most overall effective ranged attacks, very vulnerable to melee
Accuracy is NOT the determining factor for ranged superiority. Being "horribly inaccurate, stacked with already inefffective overall = meat" Being more effective at long range, able then to kite within 40-64m and always maintain advantage...that's what the reality is.
Why.
Given:: Two opponents, say, IDENTICAL accuracy at 60m
Pistoleer vs rifleman.
Who's "more effective" MInd attacks, flushing volley, and posture changed dizzy, etc, or weak health bleeds, fan shot..and..body shot 2? I'm at loss here. Please play this scenario out. Therefore, who is most effective "at long range".
Third point:
Rifle at 15m, pistol at 15m. Same fight. According to Aldeon, both master rifles and master pistols are hitting around 90% of the time at this range.
Who is "more effecitve" at close range?
Answer: rifles.
Rifles are most effective at "every range" is the conclusion I draw from that. But that's suspect...I'd like you to do the same exercise and we can discsuss it.
We're willing to accept having worse targeted shots, worse state effective, and worse armor piercing, etc., as long as we aren't gimped on accuracy at range. Rifles currently have more effective specials at ALL ranged, according to that analysis.
I can COMPLETELY understand you guys not wanting to be kited because you have no long-range capacity. It happens to Riflemen all the time. We get reverse-kited. Once a Pistoleer or Carbineer gets within 40 meters of us, we have to stand up and run away from them. But we never hit them betweent he bad range and the run-and-gun penalty. So we literally get REVERSE-KITED. It's frustrating as all hell.
Okay, so you know what? Let's throw my original starting point on accuracy out the window. Perhaps the guns do need less of a "dead zone" as far as accuracy. The problem that will start to creep in then, of course, is what makes a pistol a pistol or what makes a rifle a rifle? Is it just the types of specials they can do? It starts to get vague and fuzzy. We begin to lose track of the Noules' question. WHO ARE WE?
Now, as for what Ald asked for, I think that was a case of, "shoot for the stars, and you may just leave the ground". If we tell the Devs everything we'd like, they may just decide we should get a tiny, tiny bit of it. Because when we only ask for one or two reasonable things, well, we get our elite rifles nerfed.
What we really need to do is do a comparison with two people that have NO marksman skills. The problem is that they would then be forced to use the CDEF Rifle, which has MUCH different range mods than ALL other Rifles. It has range mods like a Carbine, really. The thing is that I know, in my own experience, anything under 40 meters has pretty much nothing to fear from me.
Maybe, once again, the difference is between Rifleman and Master Rifleman? Perhaps those +Accuracy mods are stacking, and by the time you get to the top, they are deadly, but beforehand they are pathetic? That's the Rifleman experience, I can't imagine our Accuracy being any exception.
Aden, I think we're on the right track because I follow what you're saying.
I don't like dead zones but there are lots of important ways to make the classes different.
First of all I think that rifles should hit HARD but slow and pistols should hit faster but weak. We probably all agree on that. Also the rifles are masters of armor piercing. The Devs need to do a better job making good rifles and pistols that reflect this. So many rifles (like E11) and pistols (like DX2) are just crap right now.
Secondly I think that rifles should get some major advantages from cover and prone that they don't have now because the cover line is all bugged and crappy. Pistoleers should get advantages from being on the move. This makes it so rifles are more like snipers and pistoleers are more run-and-gun types.
Third I think that there needs to be some major differentiation in specials. Pistoleer right now is filled with crappy random HAM attacks -- we aren't sure what we are supposed to do besides plink random HAM damage while moving. Rifleman has some skills that are cool but they are bugged ... like your ranged DB being inaccurate. I think the solution is to add some cool skills to both sides that aren't unbalanced but add strategy. Like one idea I've seen from other riflemen is disappearing from radar. Okay that sounds pretty cool and sniper-like if you balance it. Just make it work only in /cover and put a timer on it so you can't leave /cover for a certain number of seconds. That makes you pick your spot carefully before you snipe so you don't just run up to a guy and drop down to snipe mode.
Anyway there are a lot of ideas we can come up with, but that's a start. I think we should work together and present them to the Devs as a community-wide idea to make our classes do something unique and fun that rewards strategy and teamwork.
Philo, I agree, once again, that our SKILLS need to be those that differentiate us. And we both have some dopey skills. For example, Riflemen have FOUR SHOTS that raise posture on the target. Two of them are singles, two of them are AoE. Do we really need FOUR SHOTS that raise posture? One set of them raises posture AND causes a stun effect. Explain to me WHY we would want to raise posture WITHOUT causing stun. For that matter, explain why we would want to raise posture at all (that often causes MOBs to switch to melee. . . um no).
Luckily, posture changes don't work anymore.
The Devs HAVE said that they are going to make Take Cover more useful, and I think that will be a major bonus to our class if they make it usable. The real trick with making Take Cover work is giving us some way to stop melee'ers from just rushing us in one shot. Because if we are stuck prone with our rifle out, and get hit with a melee attack. . . /activateclonenow. But what I am saying is that it is possible.
Most of our attacks (believe it or not) hit a random HAM bar. We just don't use them because they are worthless. Heh. But you guys seem to be hitting random HAM bars. . . and that's about it. I do think that your special attacks need more definition, where as ours need to function in a way that is vaguely useful to us. But what "special definition" would you suggest you have as Pistoleers? Really, there are only so many special status effects weaponry can have. Once you use those all up, it's pure repetition.
A number of Riflemen have thought about a shot that causes Intimidation replacing the StartleShot that we have. It's one of the few effects that might actually aid us, and it could make sense in terms of a Sniper's attack.
One thing I've been thinking about is our range issue. And how that could migrate into special attacks.
What about a Rifleman attack that's like PointBlank2? A more powerful close-up shot. Obviously not NEARLY as powerful as our other shots, and with a delay. But it is infuriating when a MOB has 50 HAM left and rushes us, because we know that even though we need but to SPIT on the thing, it's going to kill us.
Id' suggest a similar shot for Pistoleers. Different than /aim, although I'd make it stackable with aim. DistanceShot or something. I don't know, I am tossing ideas around here. Trying to figure out what you guys lack. What special shot effects would really compliment Pistoleer or make sense? Thoughts?
Jaegen88 wrote:
Aden,
Three points:
Aldeon says he has logs of master riflemen and master pistoleers, firing at between 15m and 60m, basically showing the same accuracy at all ranged. Rifles are NOT that inaccurate at close range, is his argument. Is he wrong?
Pistols should be outstanding at close ranges, usable at medium ranges, and tragicly awful at long ranges.
Carbines should be terrible at point blank ranges, superb at medium ranges, and highly dubious at long ranges.
Rifles should be pathetic at close ranges, tolerable at medium ranges, and devestating at long ranges.
-----------
The reality is like this, and its what makes sense to us:
Pistols: least effective ranged weapon attacks, least vulnerable to melee
Carbines: mid-range effective attacks, vulnerable to melee
Rifes: Most overall effective ranged attacks, very vulnerable to melee
Accuracy is NOT the determining factor for ranged superiority. Being "horribly inaccurate, stacked with already inefffective overall = meat" Being more effective at long range, able then to kite within 40-64m and always maintain advantage...that's what the reality is.
Why.
Given:: Two opponents, say, IDENTICAL accuracy at 60m
Pistoleer vs rifleman.
Who's "more effective" MInd attacks, flushing volley, and posture changed dizzy, etc, or weak health bleeds, fan shot..and..body shot 2? I'm at loss here. Please play this scenario out. Therefore, who is most effective "at long range".
Third point:
Rifle at 15m, pistol at 15m. Same fight. According to Aldeon, both master rifles and master pistols are hitting around 90% of the time at this range.
Who is "more effecitve" at close range?
Answer: rifles.
Rifles are most effective at "every range" is the conclusion I draw from that. But that's suspect...I'd like you to do the same exercise and we can discsuss it.
We're willing to accept having worse targeted shots, worse state effective, and worse armor piercing, etc., as long as we aren't gimped on accuracy at range. Rifles currently have more effective specials at ALL ranged, according to that analysis.
Hmmm, honestly, do you believe what you post here yourself?
Dude, we are not noobs. I think you spend so much time on forum. Please log into the game and play around a little. Get some Rifleman friends at any level. play with carbineers. Play with better pistoleers. From what i read in your posts you dont know the major facts/problems of the game. Dont really want to bash you but you just post nonsense around here.
There is major balance acts that make the game. Actually they are there to make the classes unique from each other.
RIFLE: Heavy(movement penalty) - Long barrels(accuracy at long range) - Slower attack speed - WorseMelee Penalty - Very bad accuracy while moving - Use Mind pool to attack random pool mainly.
PISTOL: Light - Accurate at short range (Thats because pistols have their own, shorter barrels) - Fast - Great accuracy while moving - Melee penalty? hehe - ACTION cost
Carbine, somewhere between those 2 (poor carbines
)
I think each class MUST have his own play style. If all classes work exactly the same, we have a big problem. And now pistolsare theproblem here. They just work very good, doesnt matter if your at point blank or shoot imps in theed from moenia.
And a question, It seems like your really sure that your right. Why you dontlet AA to pass it to Devs. They will check it and prove that riflemen community is wrong. Whats the problem?
CorporateDan
Yes riflemen do more damage at the same speed, which is a problem,
Agreed.
but at very close ranges running I don't think they are as accurate as you are leading us to believe. That is now, and the devs have acknowledge the problem and for better or worst will try to balance it.
Agreed, these were not at running/close range. If running, indeed, pistoleers get a specific accuracy modifier while running, that offsets the running accuracy modifier for them. Interesting point, because rifles have the opposite advantage, they get additional ranged defense while prone through the "cover" skill (and yes, can crawl around faster...laugh, but it's in your skill tree, for a reason, if you don't like it, get it removed), in addition to the accuracy and defense that everyone already gets when prone. Point being, a pistoleer gives up their "advantge" (accuracy while moving) if they go prone. A rifleman gives up cover if they run and fire. Personally, I go prone in PvP quite often to reduce my opponent's (usually eyeshots from BHs) accuracy and to increase mine. I also go prone ALWAYS in PvE, there is no reason not to in most cases.
If you are solo PvP chances are if you will have to run around if you dont want them to close the gap. That makes you worse in "duel" situations, which I think we can all agree is probably OK, since in a frontline PvP scenario, you prone firing flushing volley, is devestating, and the pistoleer, while hitting far less due to your cover, is pretty ineffective..because when they do hit...what..random HAM damge from fan shot vs your superior ranged defense + cover?
I think if we then try these two scenarios, again, they will be fairly close. The question then is, do you disagree with the role your abilities, namely cover, place you in, in terms of gaining complete ranged superiority through prone/cover/superior specials?
I do agree that there are a lot more disads and advantages than we are discussing, we're talking about the basics here, to keep it simple. Entertainers are being more buff-friendly, there is "some" light at the end of the downtime tunnel...maybe. Chefs are also a good hope, but that's all "in the future" stuff.
Philosopher/Aden
Personally I have no problem with the idea that rifles should be more accurate at long range than pistols. I do think, however, the DEGREE to which they should be superior is a matter of debate. Personally I'd like to see rifles get far MORE accuracy than they have now at shorter range and then a modest reduction for pistols at long range.
Agreed. Some of the ranged mods on weapons are screwed up. Why do rifles drop off sharply from 60m to 64m in accuracy? easy fix. Check out the RAW accuracy mods. Why does the E11, DLT20, Tusken, etc, drop so sharply at 64m? A novice rilfleman that strolls out with a low HAM DLT20 will think, Why in the HECK am I so inaccurate at 64m? I'm a rifle user!! Well, why not fix rifles so they don't drop that fast? It makes more sense to start there IMO. Obviously early rifles have substantiall lower accuracy at 64m than their ideal range, even if it's not far apart.
Pistols could easily be modified to stack greater penalty at max range, it's just a database change. I despise pre-nerf crap, butI don't know if there is a way to retro changes to inventory (doubtful). If not, tough call, I mean, you still use pre-nerf T21s at 1.0 speed, until they break. Pistol specials could be reduced, slightly, in accuracy, that would also not be out of the question, especially when coupled with boosting rifle accuracy modifiers on the weapons (which I really do think could use an overhaul, when you look at the numbers)
Horribly accurate at long range? No way, we are currently INEFFECTIVE at EVERY range just due to our specials, we are accurate yes, but when we hit, its' the lack of state effects, AR, and overall good special abilities that make us range inferior.