Amayii Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 Hello everyone, Based on the feedback you all have been providing us with, we have changed the weapon stats for a second round of testing. Both the regular RFP-9 and the RFP-9 SD have been adjusted so be sure to test them both. Please be sure to leave us your feedback in this thread, so that we can make further adjustments if needed. The information on the new changes: RFP-9: Test A: Restored to live values then added the following changes Reduced Effective Range Reduced Min Damage Range Test B: Lowered Heath damage Increased Magazine Capacity Increased Ammo Pool Capacity Decreased Accuracy Reduced Min Damage Range Reduced Marksmanship Modifier RFP-9 SD: Test A: Restored to live values then added the following changes Reduced Min Damage Range Test B: Lowered Heath damage Increased Magazine Capacity Increased Ammo Pool Capacity Decreased Accuracy Reduced Marksmanship Modifier Thank you all very much for your help and feedback as we continue moving towards a better weapon balance. ~@mayii 1 4
SkittyM Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Hexerin said: Numbers...? They want people to ACTUALLY TEST STUFF. So no, we don't get numbers. 1
Darkzero3802 Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 17 minutes ago, Hexerin said: Numbers...? Go into a test district, equip a RFP and fire it.
Hexerin Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, SkittyM said: They want people to ACTUALLY TEST STUFF. So no, we don't get numbers. Blind testing is for new theories, not adjustments to known quantities. 1
SkittyM Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Hexerin said: Blind testing is for new theories, not adjustments to known quantities. Considering what happened last time, they want people to test instead of speculate. So you'll just have to wait until the update goes live. 1
Hexerin Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, SkittyM said: Considering what happened last time, they want people to test instead of speculate. So you'll just have to wait until the update goes live. No point even bothering to go into the districts if there's no information to make comparisons on. Was it reduced to 30m like the community asked? Maybe 20m? Maybe even 10m, in some misunderstanding of the community's statements it should be a CQC weapon? Who knows. We sure as shit don't, since they aren't disclosing. There's no way to actually confirm without datamining... and considering the Db hasn't been updated to the live client yet, who knows when we'll have that info. Not a knock on you, don't misunderstand. The Db crew are a boon to this community and a little delay on the Db updates isn't a big deal in general.
Nitronik Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 16 minutes ago, SkittyM said: Considering what happened last time, they want people to test instead of speculate. So you'll just have to wait until the update goes live. I really hope this is personal opinion and not LO's stance. 2 1
vsb Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 "lets have them waste testing time figuring out the new numbers instead of actually doing meaningful testing" - little orbit, 2019 2 1
SkittyM Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, Hexerin said: No point even bothering to go into the districts if there's no information to make comparisons on. Was it reduced to 30m like the community asked? Maybe 20m? Maybe even 10m, in some misunderstanding of the community's statements it should be a CQC weapon? Who knows. We sure as shit don't, since they aren't disclosing. There's no way to actually confirm without datamining... and considering the Db hasn't been updated to the live client yet, who knows when we'll have that info. Not a knock on you, don't misunderstand. The Db crew are a boon to this community and a little delay on the Db updates isn't a big deal in general. Again, you'll just have to test. The DB wont be updated with these changes cause of how they work afaik. Data mining also wont do anything since the stats are on the server, not the client. 4 minutes ago, Nitronik said: I really hope this is personal opinion and not LO's stance. It is.
vsb Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, SkittyM said: It is. im not sure if this is better or worse tbh did orbit just forget to post actual numbers?
Flaws Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 I'm not on board with the guessing game of the numbers. I knew that the previous numbers were going to be bad and I went and tested it regardless and my suspicions were confirmed. I don't think that this was the reason prototype districts died so quickly, but the fact that players who don't "care" didn't have an incentive to go play in those districts over the regular ones. It's always the same with testing stuff in this game, it has nothing to do with giving or not giving exact numbers. Even if players refuse to use OCA/RFP loadouts, if you can get them into the prototype districts, you will have them be test subjects for actual testers to test the new stats on. Now you are instead giving everyone extra work of trying to figure out the exact number for range for example which will take multiple team kills in a group outside of a mission instead of actively playing in a mission. I expect even less players to bother with this now. 1 2
SkittyM Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, Solamente said: im not sure if this is better or worse tbh did orbit just forget to post actual numbers? Nope. I definitely recommend Test B however. Really, i know people are going to complain over either. Oh, and probably don't misinterpret the B stats, those would be viewed as Live > Test B, not Test B > Test B 2.0.
Hexerin Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Flaws said: I knew that the previous numbers were going to be bad and I went and tested it regardless Same here. Regardless of my confidence in my educated assumptions (based on the combination of the paper stats and past gameplay experience), I still felt the obligation to give the changes a solid run in actual gameplay to reach an actual definitive confirmation one way or the other. This is, after all, the duty of one involved in testing. This information obfuscation however, it's petty and hinders (or even outright removes) the credibility of the testing. 1
TheMessiah Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) doh.. Edited August 21, 2019 by TheMessiah
Fortune Runner Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) My only complaint is i want to test but no one is in there. Edit : perhaps we should arrange a day and time for those of us who want to test to meet up in there? Edited August 21, 2019 by Fortune Runner
Guest Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 Happy to see you guys actually listening to the community.
MattScott Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 Hi all, I’ve been stuck in meetings at Gamescom, so I haven’t been able to weigh in much on the first round of RPF/OCA changes. We did take the time to rethink our strategy, and this new round hopefully addresses some of your feedback. Test A Is the simplest and most direct set of changes that moves the RFP back to shorter range secondary. Test B still significantly reduces the range but has a bit more risk vs reward gameplay. I recognize that based on the stats we shared, the last round was easy for players to spot our misfire. The lack of specific stats was not intended to upset anyone or force testing. This is just something we want to try this time because we all know that stats on paper can appear vastly different than actual in-game feel. Perhaps these notes were too vague, and we can work on finding a middle ground, but I want to reduce the amount of discussion from players who weighed in simply based on the stats but without getting into a district. Thanks, Matt 2 2
Nitronik Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, MattScott said: Hi all, [...] This is just something we want to try this time because we all know that stats on paper can appear vastly different than actual in-game feel. Perhaps these notes were too vague, and we can work on finding a middle ground, but I want to reduce the amount of discussion from players who weighed in simply based on the stats but without getting into a district. Thanks, Matt Given the average life-span of the testing districts, this is quite the predicament at times - and I am not sure temporarily omitting exact numbers will aid much Is the OCA adjustment still part of the testing district?
Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 @NotZombieBiscuit the real changes have been posted Jokes aside, it's nice to see the competence you showed in the first weapon balance pass return now. These new changes are a step in the right direction, although as a prediction, test B changes do look a bit harsh. Testing will tell in the end
Snubnose Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 1 hour ago, MattScott said: Hi all, I’ve been stuck in meetings at Gamescom off topic, but I'm interested in what kind of stuff you're doing at gamescom... can you go a little more into details?
Nitronik Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Snubnose said: off topic, but I'm interested in what kind of stuff you're doing at gamescom... can you go a little more into details? I'd wager it's Descent related
MattScott Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 Honestly, it’s a bit of everything, including a couple meetings with Deep Silver / Koch to manage the APB upgrade coming on console. 1 4
Similarities Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 Look, it's wonderful that you guys are listening to our complaints, but the idea of "don't release numbers because people will write off the changes without trying them" is a bit of a half-truth, it wasn't the fact that the numbers that made us not play, it was the fact that the changes were flat out silly and didn't require testing to know that they'd be awful. I remember when the first round of changes went out last year for the shotguns and Artemis, everyone was downloading OTW to try them out, even though we were provided with numbers. Why? Because the changes were meaningful and intriguing, there was a genuine air of mystery to how they would directly impact gameplay. I didn't try the last round of changes with the Fang because it didn't take any tests, I've played with the RFP enough to know that just reducing the damage to make it an extra burst to kill and then extending the range was clearly a misstep in the wrong direction. 1
crusade Posted August 21, 2019 Posted August 21, 2019 4 hours ago, SkittyM said: They want people to ACTUALLY TEST STUFF. So no, we don't get numbers. How are we supposed to figure out how much damage our weapon is even doing during testing if we don't get the statistics on the weapon? This isn't a logical way of getting people into test districts, players don't want to do homework. It's like giving us a scientific experiment, and telling us you decreased the amount of substance in a mixture without telling us by how much. How the hell are we supposed to figure this sh*t out?
Recommended Posts