ISSR-B Rework

[Rhexx 39]

So with the recent update with vehicle health reductions and the dogear nerf, LO, was it your intention to make the weapon absolutely useless?

It currently takes 39 shots to destroy a pioneer with steel plating 3. Even the nerfed vegas 4x4 requires a whoping 33 STK, 25 STK without steel plating 3.

To put this into perspective, the DMR-AV only requires 6 shots to put down a vegas 4x4, 7 for pioneer, 9 for pioneer with steel plating 3.

 

 

Edit: proposed changes to bring the ISSR back to viability. Spreadsheet comparing pre/post nerf vehicles and weapon's STK and TTK.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-bxgx7h7Uvk0Pte6Uw5L8h84Cn7M4i3Og2_PvGPG8rQ/edit?usp=sharing

 

TLDR:

• Increase ISSR-B hard damage from 45 -> 65

• Decrease ISSR-B Magazine size from 12 -> 10

• Remove ISSR-B ability to be used in vehicle windows

Edited August 20, 2020 by Rhexx

[vsb 6171]

On 7/31/2020 at 7:18 PM, 404 said:

can we get the reasoning behind these changes?

 

i get that these guns are meant to be more hybrid anti vehicle/anti personnel but nerfing problematic vehicle hp doesn't mean much if some of the most effective AV guns also get a hard damage nerf

 

also don't get why the issr-a gets more hard damage than the issr-b even though it fires faster

On 7/31/2020 at 7:23 PM, Frosi said:

This is to seperate meta guns from proper anti-vehicle guns, these weapons (except the ISSR-A) already get a lot of use on Live and with these changes could easily become overpowered and continue to overshadow the proper AV guns such as the ALIG / DMR AV. The reduction in hard damage on these guns should give the others a bit of a breathing room without risking them becoming flat out overpowered.

 

The ISSR-A is the odd one out in that list but 70 hard damage on that weapon felt generally unreasonable and while its an already underused gun making it extremely overpowered hard damage wise is probably not the way to make it viable and fun to play. As for why it is left with more hard damage, if I had to guess its because of it being an already relatively bad gun and also have its hard damage drop off sooner than the ISSR-B.

On 7/31/2020 at 7:47 PM, 404 said:

i'll wait until i can test this ingame, but i feel like nerfing the weapons people like to use for AV in order to force/encourage the use of the pure AV is a poor way to give pure AV guns a bigger niche

On 7/31/2020 at 7:48 PM, Frosi said:

Well I believe these weapons should still be around as strong as they are currently on live, maybe slightly worse or even slightly better but the difference in the actual AV weapons like the DMR is insanely noticable. 

 

lazy repost of patch note discussion

 

 

[Acornie 490]

It's just not anti-vehicle anymore, it's still an ok sniper.

[Todesklinge 143]

3 minutes ago, Acornie said:

It's just not anti-vehicle anymore, it's still an ok sniper.

You mean its an useless sniper?

 

Now take the Ntec7 its better in all situations!

 

I am thinking the devs whould like to force the game play to a mono game play by reduces the damage for allready weak weapons.

 

[vsb 6171]

5 minutes ago, Todesklinge said:

You mean its an useless sniper?

the issr-b is a good gun beyond its AV capabilities

 

 

3 minutes ago, Todesklinge said:

You mean its an useless sniper?

the issr-b still does more hard damage than the ntec7 even after the nerf and it still has more range, so that's incorrect

[Gateron 267]

Imagine comparing the dog ear against a actual anti vehicle sniper. Its still a good gun against players. 

[Rhexx 39]

The problem is that since it is no longer the hybrid sniper that it used to be, it now sits in a position of inferiority. It was decent at both, but if you went with a pure hard damage or health damage weapon it would get outclassed. It cant compete with any AV weapon now, and as an anti infantry weapon it is outclassed by the obeya, ursus and HVR. All of this results in the weapon being lowered on the tier list and forcing people to drop it entirely for a more competitive weapon.

[Cr0 328]

If it's to make people use DMR AV more, that's not how to do it.

Nerf dog ear hard damage just slightly (compared to how it was).

Make all the DMRs much more portable. It's too heavy to use.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Cr0

[Noob_Guardian 418]

2 hours ago, Cr0 said:

If it's to make people use DMR AV more, that's not how to do it.

Nerf dog ear hard damage just slightly (compared to how it was).

Make all the DMRs much more portable. It's too heavy to use.

 

 

They already have the Anubis and that's pretty much a mobile sniper though? And pretty much noone uses it. Hell people don't even like using the ISSR or the Oblivion because they are 4 hit  yet they are more mobile. DMR, Oblivion, and ISSR-B already have faster TTK's than the HVR as well.

 

So sadly, that change probably will not change anything.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Noob_Guardian

[vsb 6171]

Just now, Noob_Guardian said:

They already have the Anubis and that's pretty much a mobile sniper though? And pretty much noone uses it.

a full speed dmr av would have 2 significant niches while the anubis doesn't really even have one, idk if that's a valid comparison

[Cr0 328]

24 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

They already have the Anubis and that's pretty much a mobile sniper though? And pretty much noone uses it. Hell people don't even like using the ISSR or the Oblivion because they are 4 hit  yet they are more mobile. DMR, Oblivion, and ISSR-B already have faster TTK's than the HVR as well.

 

So sadly, that change probably will not change anything.

But those are not AV weapons.

Saying DMR has lower TTK than HVR is a typical example on something that doesn't translate from numbers to actual usability.

[GhosT 1301]

The ISSR-B is an insane gun, and there's no reason for it to be AV at all.

[DeadPixels 253]

Love playing ISSR-B, but i never understood why the weapon did so much hard damage. I'm also glad they changed this

[BlatMan 711]

The ISSR-B needs that stupid bloom curve removed.

[Cr0 328]

20 hours ago, GhosT said:

The ISSR-B is an insane gun, and there's no reason for it to be AV at all.

It shouldn't be able to substitute dedicated AV weapons, sure, so a hard damage nerf was in place, but such a complete hard damage nerf takes away a tad too much from the selling point and fun of the weapon which is its versatility.
The actual DMR AV snipers are too situational, seeing how the changes in mission stage types changes back and forth so much and so quickly, so that taking the time to equip a DMR AV for instance is too often not worth it, seeing as you have to change back to a normal weapon again, which doubles the time you have to spend with weapon swapping just to use it in one specific situation. Lowering the equip time by about half for DMR AV (for instance) is needed, as well as making it much more portable.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Cr0

[Lign 361]

Anti vehicle gun with an ability to shoot from a car window shouldn’t exist. Dog ear is still a very good gun. They just made it like it should be

[GhosT 1301]

1 hour ago, Cr0 said:

It shouldn't be able to substitute dedicated AV weapons, sure, so a hard damage nerf was in place, but such a complete hard damage nerf takes away a tad too much from the selling point and fun of the weapon which is its versatility.
The actual DMR AV snipers are too situational, seeing how the changes in mission stage types changes back and forth so much and so quickly, so that taking the time to equip a DMR AV for instance is too often not worth it, seeing as you have to change back to a normal weapon again, which doubles the time you have to spend with weapon swapping just to use it in one specific situation. Lowering the equip time by about half for DMR AV (for instance) is needed, as well as making it much more portable.

 

That's the point, the ISSR-B gave us little to no reason to use the DMR-AV.

[claude 223]

On 8/16/2020 at 10:36 AM, Rhexx said:

The problem is that since it is no longer the hybrid sniper that it used to be, it now sits in a position of inferiority. It was decent at both, but if you went with a pure hard damage or health damage weapon it would get outclassed. It cant compete with any AV weapon now, and as an anti infantry weapon it is outclassed by the obeya, ursus and HVR. All of this results in the weapon being lowered on the tier list and forcing people to drop it entirely for a more competitive weapon.

yeah, you're right. now you have a weapon with a high ttk, when it doesn't really have a reason to have such a high ttk with it's utility pretty much nerfed to the ground. i dont think the ttk should be lowered, I just think the hard damage should be buffed a little bit more. make it worse than the alig & dmr, but shouldnt take 3 or more mags to destroy a steel plate 3 pio

 

 

[Cr0 328]

1 hour ago, GhosT said:

 

That's the point, the ISSR-B gave us little to no reason to use the DMR-AV.

I promise you, people are not going to start using the DMR-AV noticably more just because the dog ear was nerfed.

ISSR-B did have a tad too much hard damage, yes, but the reason people don't use DMR-AV is more because of how impractical it is (along with the other reasons I mentioned) than how good the ISSR-B is. DMR needs a buff (not in terms of damage though).

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Cr0

[GhosT 1301]

11 minutes ago, Cr0 said:

I promise you, people are not going to start using the DMR-AV noticably more just because the dog ear was nerfed.

ISSR-B did have a tad too much hard damage, yes, but the reason people don't use DMR-AV is more because of how impractical it is (along with the other reasons I mentioned) than how good the ISSR-B is. DMR needs a buff (not in terms of damage though).

 

 

Yup, it's almost like it's intended that AV weapons are incredibly good at taking out vehicles but rather meh against people on foot.

ISSR-B was very good in both classes, so one had to go - the one that didn't make sense.

[Rhexx 39]

1 minute ago, GhosT said:

 

Yup, it's almost like it's intended that AV weapons are incredibly good at taking out vehicles but rather meh against people on foot.

ISSR-B was very good in both classes, so one had to go - the one that didn't make sense.

What is this "you cant have both" mindset? How is it wrong for the game to have a versatile weapon system that is both decent against both infantry and vehicles while straight up still losing to a weapon dedicated to either? all this nerfing weapons into the ground is doing is forcing people away from other options and cornering them into using pre-established meta of Obeya/HVR/SWARM. Ill post a more detailed reply later with my proposed changes to the ISSR to make it a viable choice that will satisfy both party's desires.

[PingOVER9000 189]

16 minutes ago, GhosT said:

 

Yup, it's almost like it's intended that AV weapons are incredibly good (that "incredibly good" is kinda arguable ...) at taking out vehicles but rather meh against people on foot.

ISSR-B was very good in both classes, so one had to go - the one that didn't make sense. (that "very good" is kinda arguable too )

 

What make interesting the ISSR-B was in fact its versatility against players and vehicles, losing it it's just make it a decent ( mobile ) sniper weapon, but I retain it inferior or less consistent compared to a Scout, HVR (or Obir with IR3) for make a example.

 

Kinda agree for nerfing its hard damage in funcion of the actual HP of vehicles, but me too I feel the hard damage a little too much.

 

It wasnt a OP weapon before, at best a hidden sleeper or meta gun, now it's just decent or better it doesnt worth the choice compared to other more consistent long range weapons.

 

[Cr0 328]

59 minutes ago, GhosT said:

 

Yup, it's almost like it's intended that AV weapons are incredibly good at taking out vehicles but rather meh against people on foot.

ISSR-B was very good in both classes, so one had to go - the one that didn't make sense.

SWARM isn't meh against people on foot, yet it's strong AV also.

Nobody said DMR AV should be better against people. I said it should be buffed in a way that it becomes a much more practical gun to use in terms of the mission stages, so you can equip and unequip it much faster when needed, as well as more portable. Then people would be bothered using it more.

 

So there is(/was) a category with a couple of guns that are good at both (AV and anti people)  (ISSR-B and SWARM.. perhaps another) and there was nothing wrong with it imo. It's just that the ISSR-B was a bit too good at AV and needed less hard damage, as opposed to completely nerfed hard damage, because now, you're gonna have to get rid of that borderline AV/people category and nudge the SWARM out of there too, if the reasoning is that guns should not be in a category that covers both types of targets.

 

So then either:
The hard damage needs to remain in some decreased capacity for the ISSR-B,
OR:
the SWARM needs a nerf too (against people).

 

The first of these two options requires only one small change and accepts a weapon category covering both types of targets. The second option requires two (or more) changes as it will have to be applied to everything that risks covering both categories now and in the future, if this is now the new rule.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Cr0

[CookiePuss 5379]

The Dog Ear was just too good at too many things. (imo)

I still find it to be an exceptionally versatile weapon, even with the loss of its former AV capability, so I'm ok with the nerf.

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by CookiePuss

[GhosT 1301]

2 hours ago, Cr0 said:

SWARM isn't meh against people on foot, yet it's strong AV also.

 

Take a wild guess why we adjusted the SWARMs Hard Damage.