Why are you nerfing the NTEC?

[vsb 6171]

5 hours ago, Tenginima said:

I can't belive you'd be so sad enough to actually take one of my quotes, edit it, and then post it to make me look like an idiot, that is the proof that you lost the argument.

i don’t think i quoted anyone in that post, unless you’ve mixed it up with the car gameplay quote which i’ve already said was my misunderstanding, or at least i meant to at some point

 

but fc takes all the problems of action districts, of which you’ve said there are many, and smashes them into an even smaller area 

 

there’s no skill present in a mode where you can shoot in practically any direction and hit enemies, there’s no tactics beyond  crushing any red names with bodies, and there’s no point balancing based on a mode where literally every weapon is serviceable 

 

have you ever tried low pop fc?

without the threat of being drowned in enemy players it’s incredibly obvious how little balancing the maps have, baylan is slightly better than asylum (the map that was designed as a no-combat social district area) but it’s still not anywhere near optimal, and don’t even get me started on beacon - in the end these maps were designed and implemented by some of the same people who made the action district maps and they suffer from all the same flaws

 

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Solamente
typo

[Alani 475]

3 hours ago, Solamente said:

bop it

 

Fight club is literally a fight club. Its meant as a place where people can shoot each other to their heart's content without a real worry of losing threat and lets people test out loadouts if they want to test it, etc etc.

 

 

Personally, testing weapons in FC would be a lot more beneficial than creating an entirely separate district where the only tests are shooting at a wall and testing how shit the recoil is now. It would be better to see how the nerfed ntecs perform in places where there are actual players.

 

Otherwise they might as well push the balance changes to the action districts, get the feedback, and then make a decision on finalizing the changes, or tweaking them.

[vsb 6171]

47 minutes ago, Alani said:

Fight club is literally a fight club. Its meant as a place where people can shoot each other to their heart's content without a real worry of losing threat and lets people test out loadouts if they want to test it, etc etc.

 

 

Personally, testing weapons in FC would be a lot more beneficial than creating an entirely separate district where the only tests are shooting at a wall and testing how shit the recoil is now. It would be better to see how the nerfed ntecs perform in places where there are actual players.

 

Otherwise they might as well push the balance changes to the action districts, get the feedback, and then make a decision on finalizing the changes, or tweaking them.

i don't disagree that it would be easier to test weapons in fc, i disagree that fc is the most balanced form of apb and that weapon balance should be based on fc

 

i'd prefer balance changes just being tested in live action districts but that would require orbit to make changes at least every week, and they seem pretty set on not doing that

[illgot 379]

10 hours ago, Tenginima said:

It has nothing to do with reason, it has to do with what is factually correct, and what's lazy. Nerfing the NTEC is the lazy way to do it.

no, it's not lazy, the TTK in this game is already absurdly low, as low as 0.65 seconds, that's barely half a second.  Imagine if all the weapons were as effective as the Ntec across all ranges.  At that point why not just have the Ntec and reskin it a hundred times.

 

The Ntec is too good in multiple ranges and has no real downside other than the longest.  Meanwhile nearly every other weapon has massive limitations in multiple areas; equip time, reload time,  accuracy, mobility, etc.

 

Having just one limitation on the Ntec makes it a candidate for balancing.

Edited September 30, 2019 by illgot

[Noob_Guardian 417]

19 hours ago, illgot said:

no, it's not lazy, the TTK in this game is already absurdly low, as low as 0.65 seconds, that's barely half a second.  Imagine if all the weapons were as effective as the Ntec across all ranges.  At that point why not just have the Ntec and reskin it a hundred times.

 

The Ntec is too good in multiple ranges and has no real downside other than the longest.  Meanwhile nearly every other weapon has massive limitations in multiple areas; equip time, reload time,  accuracy, mobility, etc.

 

Having just one limitation on the Ntec makes it a candidate for balancing.

i've never thought we'd ever agree on anything

20 hours ago, Solamente said:

i don't disagree that it would be easier to test weapons in fc, i disagree that fc is the most balanced form of apb and that weapon balance should be based on fc

 

i'd prefer balance changes just being tested in live action districts but that would require orbit to make changes at least every week, and they seem pretty set on not doing that

True, however most of the statistics they gather during such tests are things like average kill distance (and possibly average ttk?). While FC isn't the most balanced to do so, if they wish to get a number of people to test certain guns AND ensure that they get needed stats, it could be a better start. However, claiming that all guns should be balanced around FC performance is asinine as well. If anything it'd simply be a stat tracker. Asylum would be fine to test cqc weapons, and baylan mid-long range. Mission districts would be better, but since there's no incentive to do so, testing them in FC (with bonus jt?) might get more people in...

[willistehscrug 0]

On 9/27/2019 at 10:46 PM, trouble-maker-enthusiast420 said:

I mean the

 

part

what's there not to understand though. high refresh rate will make firing the carbine/fbw a much easier and consistent task. 

moreso, competitive gamer's more than likely would've invested in a high refresh rate monitor (and a pc to hit high frames & a ssd) back in the day. thus id wager that'd be the primary reason most people would assume carbine players with said monitors are macroing when in reality its pretty easy to fire quickly @ 144hz from experience.

[TheJellyGoo 343]

5 hours ago, willistehscrug said:

what's there not to understand though. high refresh rate will make firing the carbine/fbw a much easier and consistent task. 

moreso, competitive gamer's more than likely would've invested in a high refresh rate monitor (and a pc to hit high frames & a ssd) back in the day. thus id wager that'd be the primary reason most people would assume carbine players with said monitors are macroing when in reality its pretty easy to fire quickly @ 144hz from experience.

Don't forget the impact of a gaming chair - rofl

[Abduct / Devote 69]

Insane that the Ntec is getting changed... again. For the CQC argument, if you lose to an ntec with an oca/pmg, sorry that's on you. As for range, it takes a lot of shots to kill someone. I really don't see why it needs a nerf.. again. 

[illgot 379]

2 hours ago, Abduct / Devote said:

Insane that the Ntec is getting changed... again. For the CQC argument, if you lose to an ntec with an oca/pmg, sorry that's on you. As for range, it takes a lot of shots to kill someone. I really don't see why it needs a nerf.. again. 

It's not that the ntec out performs cqc weapons close up (though it can if you get lucky), it's that it is much better at cqc than any mid to longish range weapon should.

Edited October 2, 2019 by illgot

[Havana 216]

On 9/26/2019 at 7:50 PM, Tenginima said:

NTEC is fine, has always been fine, will always be fine. What people get wrong with it, especially in arguments about it, especially like Revoluzzer and Ghost is that the "git gud" argument is actually a much stronger argument that what people give it credit for. There's a reason why a captain decides where a ship goes and why it does so, much more experienced players such as myself know a lot more about game balance then the majority of others in this game.

 

The prime reason for why the "git gud" argument is strong is because when you compare 2 weapons such as the Star and the NTEC and put them against each other, while it is true that people overhype how "difficult" it is to use the NTEC, it is, relatively speaking to the Star, "difficult to use", for the simple fact that the NTEC has recoil, the star does not, and I am talking about realistically recoil, not technical recoil. The Star can't be, in it's current state as effective as the NTEC, due to the fact that it is 1 of the easiest weapons in the game by design. You see, there is a balance in having guns that aren't created equally, if 1 gun is easier to use, then it should be less effective then its counterparts. The Star is less effective then the NTEC, and the NTEC is superior in most ways, because the NTEC has, albeit a not very big, skill curve comparatively. Some would argue that the NTEC, doesn't represent a big enough power curve due to how "easy" it is to use. The problem with this argument is that you can bring out hundreds of examples of similar situations in APB, how the Raptor 45 is just a 50M primary Nano, or how the AMG is just a straight upgrade to the shaw, with nothing to make it more difficult to use, and you'll be stuck in an endless loop of constantly rebalancing, for the sake of rebalancing. Secondly, it's loosely based on the assumption of what is hard and what isn't in APB. Like what decides what is a "hard" gun to use? Is it recoil? Spray pattern? etc etc. People don't agree on this front, people say that it's too powerful for its intended role, making it way too powerful for other guns in their classes, the problem with this argument is that this is where the "git gud" part comes in. If you lose, to an NTEC, CQC with OCA, JG, CSG, PMG and whatnot, you are to blame, if you lose to an NTEC when you have a rifle at 60M range? You are to blame, and what's the ultimate proof of this? When you consider some of the people that use the "git gud" argument, like myself, they are at the absolute top of the hierarchy of skill in this game. AKA the people that are able to play around practically every situation, this is why our "git gud" works, and your "anti git gut" doesn't. Gametime and years spent in APB isn't the biggest factor in knowledge of the weapons sandbox, compared to skill. Skill is the biggest factor when it comes to knowledge, specifically about the weapons sandbox.

 

What does all this mean then. It means that even if you were to nerf the NTEC, you're treating the Symptoms of a disease, not the root of it. Fact of the matter is, nerf the NTEC, as Flaws said, will simply mean that rifles, and other guns will be pushed into meta, nerfing the NTEC does not equal to a more balanced and "large" meta, it will simply mean that guns such as the OBIR, OBEYA, FAR, NSSW will be used instead of the NTEC. The problem remains, the Symptom was treated instead.

 

And what is this problem? It is the core problem with APB's whole design. At least mission district-wise, because you see, why is the NTEC so dominant in missions? It is because of the fact that missions in themselves, favour a very specific meta, due to low TTK weapons, and little cover, that is Car gameplaying and long range rifles. APB was never designed with a quick TTK, and while raising it would be more work then it would be worth, the fact of the matter is that NTEC's and Rifles and their equivalents are so powerful because of the sole reason, that the map and certain game mechanics was never designed for quick TTK's. This is why the NTEC is chosen above so many alternatives, because when you have this meta, Car gameplaying, Rifles, Consumables (shields), Spotter, High burn fuel, Weapon Stacking, and low TTK. You end up in a situation where you either pick a really good gun for a specific situation, and eyhier do super well, or fuck all with it, or you use THE gun of choice, to be able to handle all situations, moderately well, you'll still lose to rifles at long range, you'll still lose to SMG's close, but you'll at least be able to put up "a fight" rather then nothing. Also consider teamwork, since not everyone are willing or have the capability too play in a 4man or premade team, the NTEC ofc becomes a natural choice, beacause it reduces the amount of teamwork needed and coordination, it's a natural phenomenon, when you consider missions, and their dynamic nature, which, due to their dynamic nature, ironically enough, is what is causing such a stale meta. 

 

Case and point to prove what I am saying. Look at Fightclub, specifically Abington, sure the NTEC is good there, but you'll see a lot more weapons being used, and loud out combos being used WHILE also being effective. There the NTEC is a true "jack of all trades", because of the map, all its features, powerpositions, counter powerpositions, having 1 room with around 10 different approach zones, a lot of cover at many areas, means that you can fully negate a lot of the NTEC's strengths, by using weapons that are better suited for the current room, zone and combat area. This is why I will always say this Fightclub was and always will be the NR1 PERSONAL SKILL mode for apb, as it is holy dependent on your personal skill, way more then your team. Missions on the contrary are Team based, hence why you can have a subpar team with great individual players, lose to less skilled individual players, but that are more coordinated and work better as a team.

 

Secondly, Fightclub is the true playground and testing ground for APB's gun sandbox. In FC, almost, everything is viable, due to the nature of the maps, and the skill involved with each player. Ofc there will be exceptions to the rule, such is always the case, but the large majority of weapons do find some success in FC, due to the fact that FC is just simply a more balanced version of the "New APB" (New APB as in when G1 took over, made the game quicker by adding the sprint shooting, lowering ttk and whatnot).

 

This is why FC, and the gun knowledge you get from FC is a lot more relevant to the "disease" of APB, because it shows that, the reason why certain guns are picked over others, are more or less because of the current structure of missions, which again, proves the fact that nerfing the NTEC is not the solution to the problem, when in FC, the NTEC isn't even a problem.

 

And lastly when it comes to FC, which also ties into the "git gud" and why some people can use it as a strong argument and others can't. Take me as an example, for years now in a row, i've been the absolute top dog in FC, there is almost not a single time where I do not perform at least great compared to the majority of players in FC. I am literally MVP or at least at the top 3 almost every single game, no matter the circumstance, no matter the opposition, and no matter the match. There are OFC exceptions, i'm only human, even I can make mistakes, and sometimes I just want to goof around. But the proof is in the pudding, my consistency in FC is extremely rare, there are very few players that even come close to my consistency and even fewer that reach it and surpass it. Point i'm trying to make? Time spent in a game does not equal skill, that's why people like Ghost and Revoluzzer are sadly, out of their league when it comes to this game, veterans yes, at the high end of skill? No. Relics of the past as I like to say, their feedback is good, but with all due respect, neither of you 2 stand a chance against many of the players that are even bellow me skill-wise, in FC, missions, I can't comment on, but in FC you are out of your league. This is why while you are still allowed to have your opinion, you are factually wrong, your arguments are wrong, when people like me can even make the SWARM seem like an OP weapon, then the fact of the matter is that my opinion, and my words carry more weight. I'm saying this both to stroke my epeen, cause i'm that mood, I don't feel humble today, but I will also be honest. I'm coming after you 2 specifically, because you 2 are the 2 people that I see talk about the NTEC the most, and your arguments are invalid. 

 

 

 

 

I think he might only use 1 gun, you'd think his life depended on it.

[willistehscrug 0]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:27 PM, TheJellyGoo said:

Don't forget the impact of a gaming chair - rofl

weeell id imagine a dude in a decent chair like an embody or sylphy would probably play better than a dude in a run of the mill bucket seat gaming char. also  on second thought maybe high refresh monitors matter a tad bit less in the case of apb since the game itself can't hold a solid high fps 

[CookiePuss 5378]

On 10/1/2019 at 7:27 AM, TheJellyGoo said:

Don't forget the impact of a gaming chair - rofl

My KDR improved 200% once I started wearing these...

 

 

But it was discovering these that made me an MLG Pro...

 

(I dont have a vagoobie, so I just stuff em up me bum)

[SUBtype 1]

NTEC is the best balanced yea. What really needs to be balanced are all the ATAC platform guns - those are complete cancer

[sorry]

[vsb 6171]

11 hours ago, SUBtype said:

NTEC is the best balanced yea. What really needs to be balanced are all the ATAC platform guns - those are complete cancer

[sorry]

lol what

[Revoluzzer 274]

On 9/29/2019 at 11:38 PM, Tenginima said:

why is it so. that in the top hierachy of players, in terms of skill. They all (except me) think that the OBIR is stronger then the NTEC? It's pretty simple really, the OBIR is stronger then the NTEC, once you get good with it. Because of reverse QSing, and because of it's massive burst damage. I disagree that it is OP, but what you will see in the case of APB, is that everyone will flood the NTEC bandwagon and hate on it, while those that are enlightened, are those that truly understand what beats it.

 

You can look at it like this, NTEC = Easy, can do most things.

 

OBIR = Harder (not hard, but harder then the NTEC), can do most things, even slighlty better then the NTEC, if you are good enough.

Alright, let's go with the OBIR stuff first. I agree it's a powerful rifle. 990 health damage in two bursts can be pretty problematic. However they're not guaranteed, since you still need to actually land 6 shots.

Can it do a lot? Yes-ish. It's of course great at long range, which it should be. It's okay at mid-range due to burst fire (corner-popping). It does more than tickle at sniper range. But below mid range you flat out need to be better than your opponent to beat them (this includes the use of "reverse" quick-switching). The N-Tec could kill you faster in CQC - purely on a technical level - than it takes to pull out most secondaries and fire them often enough to get a kill. And before that you still need to fire and hit an entire OBIR burst.

 

The OBIR is harder to use than the N-Tec and still won't give you an edge over an equally skilled opponent anywhere from close to mid range. There is certainly no "enlightenment" when it comes to the power of the OBIR. It's simply a decent weapon within its niche.

 

On 9/29/2019 at 11:38 PM, Tenginima said:

Besides, what's your proof then? you say that my way of looking at it makes it so that everything else is broken while the ntec is the epitome of balance. What do you say then? Give me 1 reason, too why the NTEC is actually OP, and why you think so. I can assure you, the reason why it seems OP to you is a lack of skill. But, I still want to hear it.

Balancing the N-Tec is not the be-all end-all, mind you. It's just a fix to one of the most egregious balancing issues. It will probably uncover more issues, albeit minor ones. People say now the Obeya might become the new "meta"? Entirely possible. Then that needs looking at. Others say people will instead switch to [insert a load of different weapons here]? That sounds like a more healthy overall balance to me.

 

The general goal should be that more different weapons get used and players switch weapons depending on their environment. It's entirely common to see a whole team on a mission use only N-Tecs. Or N-Tecs and N-HVRs. It's just as common to see the top 6 players of each faction in Fight Club to use only N-Tecs. Or N-Tecs and N-HVRs. That's not good balance, that points to a major flaw.

 

 

Now you look at all the weapons and say the N-Tec is the gold standard for weapon balance. And this might be a valid argument if all other weapons were utter trash and did not even perform well at their one, dedicated role. But on the one hand this isn't the case. Most weapons excel in their niche and only there - which is what they should do. Unlike the N-Tec, which not only excels at mid-range, but also does well at close and long range. Then on the other hand you need to be aware of gameplay design as a whole. There is a reason most pointman weapons gravitated towards a 0.70s TTK, while assault rifles targeted 0.75s. This creates a hard, technical limitation at which range assault rifles can not mechanically beat pointman weapons below a certain range. Of course random factors do play into this, but the favour always lends towards the pointman class.

That's also why the rifleman class hovered around 1.00s and snipers around 1.75s. It simply means below a certain range these weapons need to rely on luck or the player being flat out better than the opponent. Why is all of this important? Here it comes:

If you balance everything around the N-Tec, you need to buff a lot of weapons. A lot. And this will come with a plethora of issues.

First, we are already aware that the N-Tec does a lot of things very well. In order to compete with that, other weapons need to do a lot of things very well. At which point you might still be able to have them handle a little different, but overall it doesn't matter all that much which weapon you actually use. They will all do well. I like to call this "The Call of Duty Problem"; all guns play more or less the same.

Second, we are now also aware that weapon balance does not only concern weapons, but gameplay as a whole. If you need to buff a lot of weapons to get them on the same level as the N-Tec you will bring down the average TTK. Since the game world already struggles with the current average (i.e. oftentimes running from one corner to another is almost certain death), a lower average would be even worse (i.e. running from one corner to another is now certain death). I don't have a good name for this, but I like to compare it to "hardcore mode" in most games. It's hardly fun to die really quick (as far as I'm concerned), but its even worse when you have such long respawn and return times (i.e. getting back in combat) as in APB. In CoD "hardcore mode" kind of works, because you will spawn right back in combat anyway.

Third, we are certainly also aware that buffing a lot of weapons is a lot of work, with room for a lot of error. So not only will you make the game worse as a whole, you will also open yourself up to creating even bigger issues while you are at it.

 

On 9/30/2019 at 8:02 AM, Alani said:

Fight club is literally a fight club. Its meant as a place where people can shoot each other to their heart's content without a real worry of losing threat and lets people test out loadouts if they want to test it, etc etc.

 

 

Personally, testing weapons in FC would be a lot more beneficial than creating an entirely separate district where the only tests are shooting at a wall and testing how shit the recoil is now. It would be better to see how the nerfed ntecs perform in places where there are actual players.

 

Otherwise they might as well push the balance changes to the action districts, get the feedback, and then make a decision on finalizing the changes, or tweaking them.

Fight Club is not representative, because you will usually be low on health yourself or encounter enemies who are low on health. Furthermore you will usually encounter a large group of opponents or be supported by a large group of allies.

 

The game is very much supposed to provide team-oriented, objective-based gameplay in varying environments. As such weapon balance needs to support this kind of gameplay, while Fight Club is merely an offshoot where all bets are off.

Sure you can use it for additional data once you feel comfortable with the results you get from Action Districts. That's like taking a street car on the race track for additional data. But it shouldn't be your focus at all.

 

 

I do agree that the entire test district situation is less than ideal, though. A more hands on approach in the live environment (i.e. small changes every few days) would probably work better.

[notHunky 32]

I don't really use the NTEC often but I only see two problems with the weapon:

1. The range being high enough for the weapon to still be effective at around 65 meters with a couple extra shots (or at least it sure feels like it).
2. The rifle still being pinpoint accurate out to nearly 80 meters even though an entire magazine won't kill anyone at that range.

Lately though, I've been mostly getting killed by people WASD dancing around with Fangs, SR15s, and OSCARs more than anything.

 

Given that the NTEC is an assault rifle and not a marksman rifle, I think it's current handling (bloom, recoil, fire rate, etc...) is fine in that it's able to kill stuff faster around 15 to 45 meters and sometimes able to squeeze out a win at point blank if you get the drop on an SMG user and shoot them a few times first.

[Abduct / Devote 69]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:22 PM, illgot said:

It's not that the ntec out performs cqc weapons close up (though it can if you get lucky), it's that it is much better at cqc than any mid to longish range weapon should.

Obeya and OBIR can do it too though, OBIR a bit better at it since it's like a shotgun. Not sure why the CQC argument is a thing. 

 

Then people are mentioning it has too much range. I'm sorry, what? It's not like you're getting 90+m'd instantly by the thing, so I don't see the point. It's still weaker compared to other guns that fit the role of ranged. It's versatile but not the master of those range groups... 

 

 

[RespectThis 121]

Just going to post what i said in another thread just so others who may not have seen it can read it and express their opinion on it if they so choose to do so.

 

"As an Ntec main (blast me for it i don't really care) the changes are pretty dumb imo. Honestly i think the direction this game is going in terms of balancing hurts the game more than it helps it. Gun play was so much more fun back when the nano first came out. The random "gimmick mechanics" they add to these guns takes away from the arcade feeling of the game. I hate the hvr and i feel that the change to it is pretty meh. I think a damage nerf on it would have been fine. The random burst in bloom on the ntec currently is also very silly. Why when i shoot a gun at a controlled rate should i be penalized? To me it just seems silly to keep hurting players for learning weapons and playing with them efficiently. I just feel like the ntec is just going to get less and less enjoyable. While many may say "ya take that ntec mains and what not" it really just takes away from the game. Just my feeling on it though and why i wish the game was like it was in 2012-2013."

 

 

[LChristy 27]

On 10/4/2019 at 6:01 PM, SUBtype said:

NTEC is the best balanced yea. What really needs to be balanced are all the ATAC platform guns - those are complete cancer

[sorry]

thank you

[iMiss 49]

Just adding in my 2 cents:

LO needs to learn how the games meta was performing NOT just from a statistic point, but from actual gameplay before moving forward with balance changes; not just from people who feel like the ntec is too good because it's used alot, but from veteran players at the pinnacle who understand how the game plays inside and out. Their changes show more will-to-do than experience at hand. Not to mention their vision of balance seems to come from below the experienced player line. The change that old G1 had made from the old 'RTW' days ntec to what what have now was, imo, a good change, it added an interesting new burst mechanic that had to be learned, and it added a new skill ceiling to the gun that it didnt have before, while not too massively impacting the gun elsewhere (despite many calling it a nerf, i simply call it a change). It seems to me LO is more intent on lowering skill ceilings than anything else. We're still waiting on a rebalance to the nfas ever since the pellet change (while it was good, and they 'reverted their shotgun buff') the pellet changes maintained a buff to one of the easiest to use guns in the game. Lets also not get into the nitty gritty oversight of their shotgun changes, the fact that every tbotting idiot uses a shotgun, before and after their changes.. which can be an extremely annoying experience especially if they feel like they dont want to move off of corners. (i truly believe pump shotguns need an acceleration change to move the playstyle for them from cornerpopping to more run and gun)

Instead of practicing balance changes to guns that are the communities baseline, they should practice on bringing up guns that have needed attention for a very long time. It would do well to add more variety to what people use instead of scaring off veteran players, or simply pushing them off to using a new meta, which would then be addressed in a similar manner (i know that if these changes go through, ill just end up using a couple other guns which are VERY similar to play with, which wont be changed for some time). Any changes to baseline weapons could be severely detrimental to the longtime player group of an already hemorrhaging playerbase, which seems to be just about all it has left.

However, considering our voices are a minute factor in changes for them at best, i am glad im already done with chrome rifleman.

 

my largest concern of all, where the HECK is 3.5?

[illgot 379]

4 hours ago, Abduct / Devote said:

Obeya and OBIR can do it too though, OBIR a bit better at it since it's like a shotgun. Not sure why the CQC argument is a thing. 

 

Then people are mentioning it has too much range. I'm sorry, what? It's not like you're getting 90+m'd instantly by the thing, so I don't see the point. It's still weaker compared to other guns that fit the role of ranged. It's versatile but not the master of those range groups... 

 

 

Obeya and obir are great for mid to long but horrible at close.  The ntec is  good for close, great at mid and decent at long.  The only downside to the ntec are the furthest ranges (sniper) which are generally the easiest to counter since grenades, cover, distance, and a smaller hotbox become factors.

 

I feel the ntec is just a little too good in cqc with it's accuracy, rof, and being full auto.

Right now it seems like chosing any AR other than the ntec for close to long range is handicapping yourself.

Edited October 6, 2019 by illgot

[Noob_Guardian 417]

4 hours ago, RespectThis said:

Just going to post what i said in another thread just so others who may not have seen it can read it and express their opinion on it if they so choose to do so.

 

"As an Ntec main (blast me for it i don't really care) the changes are pretty dumb imo. Honestly i think the direction this game is going in terms of balancing hurts the game more than it helps it. Gun play was so much more fun back when the nano first came out. The random "gimmick mechanics" they add to these guns takes away from the arcade feeling of the game. I hate the hvr and i feel that the change to it is pretty meh. I think a damage nerf on it would have been fine. The random burst in bloom on the ntec currently is also very silly. Why when i shoot a gun at a controlled rate should i be penalized? To me it just seems silly to keep hurting players for learning weapons and playing with them efficiently. I just feel like the ntec is just going to get less and less enjoyable. While many may say "ya take that ntec mains and what not" it really just takes away from the game. Just my feeling on it though and why i wish the game was like it was in 2012-2013."

 

 

You do realized that the random burst bloom is a side effect of incorrectly firing at a consistent rate right and firing too fast, outside of the bloom modifier's recovery causing it to bloom?

 

They did bork the HVR though, sadly there is no effective 3ps3 nerf so they decided to burn the gun instead.

 

[CookiePuss 5378]

39 minutes ago, illgot said:

Obeya and obir are great for mid to long but horrible at close.  

Wtf?

[Noob_Guardian 417]

1 hour ago, iMiss said:

Just adding in my 2 cents:

LO needs to learn how the games meta was performing NOT just from a statistic point, but from actual gameplay before moving forward with balance changes; not just from people who feel like the ntec is too good because it's used alot, but from veteran players at the pinnacle who understand how the game plays inside and out. Their changes show more will-to-do than experience at hand. Not to mention their vision of balance seems to come from below the experienced player line. The change that old G1 had made from the old 'RTW' days ntec to what what have now was, imo, a good change, it added an interesting new burst mechanic that had to be learned, and it added a new skill ceiling to the gun that it didnt have before, while not too massively impacting the gun elsewhere (despite many calling it a nerf, i simply call it a change). It seems to me LO is more intent on lowering skill ceilings than anything else. We're still waiting on a rebalance to the nfas ever since the pellet change (while it was good, and they 'reverted their shotgun buff') the pellet changes maintained a buff to one of the easiest to use guns in the game. Lets also not get into the nitty gritty oversight of their shotgun changes, the fact that every tbotting idiot uses a shotgun, before and after their changes.. which can be an extremely annoying experience especially if they feel like they dont want to move off of corners. (i truly believe pump shotguns need an acceleration change to move the playstyle for them from cornerpopping to more run and gun)

Instead of practicing balance changes to guns that are the communities baseline, they should practice on bringing up guns that have needed attention for a very long time. It would do well to add more variety to what people use instead of scaring off veteran players, or simply pushing them off to using a new meta, which would then be addressed in a similar manner (i know that if these changes go through, ill just end up using a couple other guns which are VERY similar to play with, which wont be changed for some time). Any changes to baseline weapons could be severely detrimental to the longtime player group of an already hemorrhaging playerbase, which seems to be just about all it has left.

However, considering our voices are a minute factor in changes for them at best, i am glad im already done with chrome rifleman.

 

my largest concern of all, where the HECK is 3.5?

The problem however, is that it would be inefficient to just "buff" all the less used weapons. It's far easier to nerf a few problem weapons, and buff the remaining weaker ones after, than it is to buff the weaker ones to compete, then have tons of people crying "OP OP OP" on all the buffed guns because they are suddenly useful against say the ntec and potentially TOO good. It might make sense to buff every rifle to the NTEC's power, but it really does NOT, when you realize that to do that, the buffed weapons will actually have to function like the ntec with similar accuracy, bloom recovery, and versatility ending up with quite litterally "a bunch of guns which are very similar to the ntec".

 

LO are looking at making the shotguns 3 hit ko's, to get them off corners by giving more time outside of the corner to kill. Not a bad idea, but we'll have to see how it is in practice.

 

The playerbase has been hemoragging for a long time due to weapon balance, map design, mission design, and trashy vets who can't even take it easy playing newbies along with no new updates forever. I highly doubt that a large group of people will leave simply because a badly designed weapon that reigned for 7 years finally gets a hammer to it.

 

[illgot 379]

32 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

Wtf?

compared to the Ntec the OBIR and Obeya are worse, but to make up for that they gain better long range and accuracy.

 

It is so easy to just press the mouse button and swirl the Ntec around your enemy as they are jumping around than be in LDS with the OBIR or Obeya.