Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@muzackmann said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather I think when we fire underwater we pretty much negate any comparison to other guns but that just might be me.

I don't know that the answer is upgrading the flintlock simply because it seems to already be the go to for some pirates say far more then the blunderbuss, which I never see another pirate carry ever anymore. Especially for something that can be fired at far greater distances then it should be effective at, and still be relatively well aimed. I think if we're going for the type of balance your talking about which I agree should be how its done (blunder for close, pistol as the all around and EoR when you really need that distance. But I think the blunderbuss needs some love a little more than the pistol.

the problem with the blunderbuss is keg skeletons have made it completely useless in PvE and flint/EoR are far more reliable damage.

That’s true, but the blunderbuss’s niche is close quarter PvP combat, especially on ships. It’s hard to look at one-shot kills and say it’s underpowered. In my opinion the blunderbuss is functioning just as it should. I’m not sure what there is to improve.

its underpowered because the EoR is more effective in CQC with lots of reliable damage between mid to short range. The blunder is really only good if you willing to rub up against people.

@jesser92 Idk about a lot, but I didn't know any other games did that. I know battlefield has random hip fire that can be narrowed with laser, and the battlefield series easily has one of the best gun-play from a design standpoint. I just thought it was so silly when I went to test it. The pistol also follows the exact same pattern, so if you shoot them one after the other the bullets will land in the exact same spot.

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@muzackmann said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather I think when we fire underwater we pretty much negate any comparison to other guns but that just might be me.

I don't know that the answer is upgrading the flintlock simply because it seems to already be the go to for some pirates say far more then the blunderbuss, which I never see another pirate carry ever anymore. Especially for something that can be fired at far greater distances then it should be effective at, and still be relatively well aimed. I think if we're going for the type of balance your talking about which I agree should be how its done (blunder for close, pistol as the all around and EoR when you really need that distance. But I think the blunderbuss needs some love a little more than the pistol.

the problem with the blunderbuss is keg skeletons have made it completely useless in PvE and flint/EoR are far more reliable damage.

That’s true, but the blunderbuss’s niche is close quarter PvP combat, especially on ships. It’s hard to look at one-shot kills and say it’s underpowered. In my opinion the blunderbuss is functioning just as it should. I’m not sure what there is to improve.

its underpowered because the EoR is more effective in CQC with lots of reliable damage between mid to short range. The blunder is really only good if you willing to rub up against people.

To me this points to the EoR being overpowered, rather than the blunderbuss being underpowered. What changes would you make to the blunderbuss to balance it against the EoR?

How about simply removing the ability to hip-fire the EoR? I realize we've gone down this road before, but I still think that would make for a better balance. The blunderbuss would still rule at close range, the EoR would still rule at long range, and the pistol would sit in the middle.

The blunderbuss biggest weakness is trying to use it on smart opponents. Why would I let you get close to me with one when I can create some distance and pop you with the eye of reach or flintlock. No offense. I’ve been killed by it too but always in the back usually while on a cannon. I hate to say this as a proud user of the launch crew, but I agree the only way I see a balance is to remove the ability to hip fire the EOR.

@br0crastinat0r there are definitely multiple better ways to balance the weapons. Removing the EoR entirely would honestly be a better option than locking it's hip fire.

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@muzackmann said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather I think when we fire underwater we pretty much negate any comparison to other guns but that just might be me.

I don't know that the answer is upgrading the flintlock simply because it seems to already be the go to for some pirates say far more then the blunderbuss, which I never see another pirate carry ever anymore. Especially for something that can be fired at far greater distances then it should be effective at, and still be relatively well aimed. I think if we're going for the type of balance your talking about which I agree should be how its done (blunder for close, pistol as the all around and EoR when you really need that distance. But I think the blunderbuss needs some love a little more than the pistol.

the problem with the blunderbuss is keg skeletons have made it completely useless in PvE and flint/EoR are far more reliable damage.

That’s true, but the blunderbuss’s niche is close quarter PvP combat, especially on ships. It’s hard to look at one-shot kills and say it’s underpowered. In my opinion the blunderbuss is functioning just as it should. I’m not sure what there is to improve.

its underpowered because the EoR is more effective in CQC with lots of reliable damage between mid to short range. The blunder is really only good if you willing to rub up against people.

To me this points to the EoR being overpowered, rather than the blunderbuss being underpowered. What changes would you make to the blunderbuss to balance it against the EoR?

How about simply removing the ability to hip-fire the EoR? I realize we've gone down this road before, but I still think that would make for a better balance. The blunderbuss would still rule at close range, the EoR would still rule at long range, and the pistol would sit in the middle.

The problem is the hip fire isn't what makes the EoR powerful. Its fast and easier to aim that most people perceive that as accurate hip fire. Its extremely useful in the in short to mid range, and its guaranteed 90% damage. your lucky if you get 50% damage in short range with the blunderbust. There is a rapid drop off and damage that doesn't make it as useful as the EoR during ship combat if if you can position yourself wisely.

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@muzackmann said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather I think when we fire underwater we pretty much negate any comparison to other guns but that just might be me.

I don't know that the answer is upgrading the flintlock simply because it seems to already be the go to for some pirates say far more then the blunderbuss, which I never see another pirate carry ever anymore. Especially for something that can be fired at far greater distances then it should be effective at, and still be relatively well aimed. I think if we're going for the type of balance your talking about which I agree should be how its done (blunder for close, pistol as the all around and EoR when you really need that distance. But I think the blunderbuss needs some love a little more than the pistol.

the problem with the blunderbuss is keg skeletons have made it completely useless in PvE and flint/EoR are far more reliable damage.

That’s true, but the blunderbuss’s niche is close quarter PvP combat, especially on ships. It’s hard to look at one-shot kills and say it’s underpowered. In my opinion the blunderbuss is functioning just as it should. I’m not sure what there is to improve.

its underpowered because the EoR is more effective in CQC with lots of reliable damage between mid to short range. The blunder is really only good if you willing to rub up against people.

To me this points to the EoR being overpowered, rather than the blunderbuss being underpowered. What changes would you make to the blunderbuss to balance it against the EoR?

How about simply removing the ability to hip-fire the EoR? I realize we've gone down this road before, but I still think that would make for a better balance. The blunderbuss would still rule at close range, the EoR would still rule at long range, and the pistol would sit in the middle.

The problem is the hip fire isn't what makes the EoR powerful. Its fast and easier to aim that most people perceive that as accurate hip fire. Its extremely useful in the in short to mid range, and its guaranteed 90% damage. your lucky if you get 50% damage in short range with the blunderbust. There is a rapid drop off and damage that doesn't make it as useful as the EoR during ship combat if if you can position yourself wisely.

What do you propose as a fix?

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@muzackmann said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@genuine-heather I think when we fire underwater we pretty much negate any comparison to other guns but that just might be me.

I don't know that the answer is upgrading the flintlock simply because it seems to already be the go to for some pirates say far more then the blunderbuss, which I never see another pirate carry ever anymore. Especially for something that can be fired at far greater distances then it should be effective at, and still be relatively well aimed. I think if we're going for the type of balance your talking about which I agree should be how its done (blunder for close, pistol as the all around and EoR when you really need that distance. But I think the blunderbuss needs some love a little more than the pistol.

the problem with the blunderbuss is keg skeletons have made it completely useless in PvE and flint/EoR are far more reliable damage.

That’s true, but the blunderbuss’s niche is close quarter PvP combat, especially on ships. It’s hard to look at one-shot kills and say it’s underpowered. In my opinion the blunderbuss is functioning just as it should. I’m not sure what there is to improve.

its underpowered because the EoR is more effective in CQC with lots of reliable damage between mid to short range. The blunder is really only good if you willing to rub up against people.

To me this points to the EoR being overpowered, rather than the blunderbuss being underpowered. What changes would you make to the blunderbuss to balance it against the EoR?

How about simply removing the ability to hip-fire the EoR? I realize we've gone down this road before, but I still think that would make for a better balance. The blunderbuss would still rule at close range, the EoR would still rule at long range, and the pistol would sit in the middle.

The problem is the hip fire isn't what makes the EoR powerful. Its fast and easier to aim that most people perceive that as accurate hip fire. Its extremely useful in the in short to mid range, and its guaranteed 90% damage. your lucky if you get 50% damage in short range with the blunderbust. There is a rapid drop off and damage that doesn't make it as useful as the EoR during ship combat if if you can position yourself wisely.

What do you propose as a fix?

The shotgun needs to have a bit more consistent damage while aiming and at a slightly longer range...

The sniper rifle needs to have a slight decrease in accuracy when hip firing and a very small delay centering when aiming. The delay is to make it slightly harder to fire immediately after aiming since it points exactly at the center where you'd hip fire it anyway.

@savagetwinky There already is a delay for aiming btw.

@genuine-heather said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@cotu42 said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

Why do you think the flintlock should be the standard?

Haven't you ever seen a pirate movie? Pirates armed with cutlasses and flintlocks are the standards tropes found in all pirate lore, both fictional and historical. If you want a more practical reason, it's simple. The flintlock is relatively easy to carry, quick on the draw and easier to reload than a musket or blunderbuss.

The Eye of Reach is the fictional equivalent of the musket, which is a ranged weapon. It's not intended to be a close-quarters weapon. The blunderbuss is the opposite, ideally suited for close-range combat but wildly inaccurate at greater distance.

I still believe that it should be game style based more than making them suit a niche. A bit more seperation of their roles I believe would be reasonable.

The blunderbuss seems about right.

I miss a bit of consistency in its performance, personally believe the spread should be a bit less when aiming down sight. Though it is reasonably balanced.

I think the flintlock should reload a hair faster and carry 7 rounds instead of 5.

I personally believe the flintlock is very balanced at the moment and doesn't need a boost

The Eye of Reach should be far less effective at close range. These are fairly minor tweaks that I believe would help balance the three weapons and put the flintlock back in its rightful place, tucked in the belts of pirates everywhere. :)

I am all for making it less effective at close range, if it would also mean that at greater distances it just like the blunderbuss can actually one shot a person. Make it to have 55% damage when used at close range and have it increased damage the further the bullet has to travel.

It would severly nerf it at shorter ranges, but if you land that amazing shot at least it would not require a follow up (which in 99.9% of the cases you cannot do before they eat banana's as landing the first shot was already difficult)

It should be a preference thing more than anything else in my opinion.

I absolutely agree, I just think they need some tweaking to make the flintlock more attractive. We have three weapons for a reason. I believe the intention isn't to always use one weapon, but to select the best weapon to fit the situation. Opinions will vary, of course, and personal preference rules. If a pirate wants to always use the same weapon, they have that choice.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky There already is a delay for aiming btw.

I'm saying once your aiming there needs to be a delay. Not just time to aim. But once your aiming have am moment to zero in.

Thanks for the numerous amount of replies and a discussion on the different guns. I still dont see a proper argument against EoR nerfs, only that it is in a "Good place" without much or anything to back it up when people are showcasing how it really is replacing the other guns.

What was interesting is that the conversation shifted over to the blunderbuss a bit, which is a really good subject. Mostly because of how the blunderbuss is weak in comparison however, I think that making a more differing experience between the gun is to have them be more intended to their roles.

@galactic-geek said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

It would be interesting to see the blunder as hip-fire only, the reach with aim only, and the flint able to do both, but be a master of none.

This is a bit of an extreme, but it makes for obvious uses with each weapon. But it is possible to do something like this with tweaking variables without resorting to disabling a feature all-togheter. But it is still the mindset we want. Current equipment meta is EoR and Pistol, which is fine on its own as a selection, the evidence for EoR is because it is too strong. The more differing the guns are, the more understandable why one would choose these guns. But it is not like that, the current understanding is that the EoR is simply better in most ways, and competes against the blunderbuss way too well.

Here are some things To know:
EoR hip-fire is the same as the Flintlock (Or very close)
The reload of EoR is only 24 Frames (Less than half a second) longer from Flintlock Reload.
EoR does 80 damage per shot (New to me, i thought it did 75).

If you take these into account, the EoR is essentially a Flintlock Turbo remix, Delux edition (Dante included). It does what the Flintlock can, but also the Blunderbuss. Because of how the blunderbuss has spread, its damage varies on its CQC. This should be totally fine, but with the mix of another gun that can do 80 damage consistently at CQC, the Blunderbuss feels pretty weak.
The argument to Blunderbuss being weak in PvE I think is not as bad and is mostly due to the factor of gunpowder skeletons which isnt a balancing question in regards to guns, but with the presence of a better weapon up close such as the EoR, even PvE is better suited with the Sniper.

Ok, so you see, when one weapon is too good, other weapons suffer equally. When the EoR was bad, and the Blunderbuss was good, the best and only choice was the Blunderbuss (Do not forget that time of the game). Currently it is now opposite, but definitely not as bad, but the balance has tipped over in favour of EoR. The Blunderbuss still has the ability to one shot or do 90 damage so its not actually as weak as people claim it to be, it is simply EoR stealing Blunders thunder.

Making EoR fit to its role equally to how Blunderbuss is forced to its role would make for more choices of conflict. The Schimitar has no choice of conflict because there are no other option that contests its specialty, and is why a majority choose the Schimitar+GUN instead of GUN+GUN. This should be obvious. But, when a GUN contests against the rest of the GUN options in almost the same way despite not being the only choice, then it should also be obvious for its absolute strength.

If the EoR gets a Nerfing treatment akin to how Blunderbuss got nerfed, then the next point of conversation is going to be the Flintlock. This is also why most people are talking of EoR not being able to Hip-Fire instead of reducing its Damage. There is a niche of controls and precision required to wield the EoR, but you can forego it completely with a different style of play that should be more fitting for the blunderbuss.

I hope that last line should convince EoR advocates to some degree. Were trying to have a healthy family of gun wielders, rather than have everyone on one particular gun.

@savagetwinky

I'm saying once your aiming there needs to be a delay. Not just time to aim. But once your aiming have am moment to zero in.

That's not how zeroing works. Random hip fire deviation is supposed to simulate your inability to detect exactly where a gun is aiming without looking down the sights. When you look down the sights you know where it's going unless your gun isn't sighted. Since there is already a delay, adding a hidden accuracy delay as well would just be redundant and intuitive. If you wanted to add sway to the gun, that's another thing, but guns don't have that right now and probably shouldn't IMO because ships sway enough for us.

@crafek

I still dont understand the proper arguments against EoR nerfs

FTFY fam.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky

I'm saying once your aiming there needs to be a delay. Not just time to aim. But once your aiming have am moment to zero in.

That's not how zeroing works. Random hip fire deviation is supposed to simulate your inability to detect exactly where a gun is aiming without looking down the sights. When you look down the sights you know where it's going unless your gun isn't sighted. Since there is already a delay, adding a hidden accuracy delay as well would just be redundant and intuitive. If you wanted to add sway to the gun, that's another thing, but guns don't have that right now and probably shouldn't IMO because ships sway enough for us.

This has nothing to do with hip firing, When you ADS the site shouldn't be pointed to where you the exactly where the player is pointing it.. to make it harder to use in close range. Either the player would have to adjust it or the character model will center on it.

And I don't care that there is a delay already because of time to aim. I'm sailng add a delay when aiming, because of how strong guaranteed 90% damage is you shouldn't be able to easily shoot off on someone 3-4 paces away. Because that is better than a shotgun by a significant degree.

@savagetwinky

This has nothing to do with hip firing, When you ADS the site shouldn't be pointed to where you the exactly where the player is pointing it.. to make it harder to use in close range. Either the player would have to adjust it or the character model will center on it.

That's just a plain horrible way to "balance" the EoR. Piling on layers of RnG so that the player has no input is bad game design, and doesn't address the real issue.

And I don't care that there is a delay already because of time to aim. I'm sailng add a delay when aiming, because of how strong guaranteed 90% damage is you shouldn't be able to easily shoot off on someone 3-4 paces away. Because that is better than a shotgun by a significant degree.

You should care. Making the game worse is a bad thing... the shotgun is still ok, but the main reason the EoR is better than the shotgun is because the shotgun was overnerfed. There is no good reason to just gut a weapon instead of addressing the real issues that gun-play in SoT is inherently flawed. The issue's that need to be addressed are things like hitting your target anywhere is all that matters, all the guns have the same ammo pool, all the guns are single shot, and almost all combat happens at the same range CQB. Literally the only gun in the game that suffers from less accuracy is the shotgun... The more accurate you are the more pellets land. With the pistol and EoR ALL that matters is that you hit. Snipers in other games are bad in CQB because you only have one shot, and you need to hit them in head to kill them and that's REALLY hard in close quarters. Snipers have the shortest time to kill(other than shotguns which have the same), but you have to be much more accurate or you're dead. In SoT ALL the weapons are single shot, so you aren't really gonna be out dpsed when you miss. If you make the EoR a long range only weapon, it will instantly become worthless. The only long range encounters are ship to ship and you sure as hell aren't gonna be landing any shots while standing on a bouncing ship against a target on another bunching ship while they are also both moving(unless you are ridiculously lucky.

That^ was kinda a mess, but I don't wanna go back and clean it up.
TL;DR- Right now the weapon balance needs to be addressed collectively. Not on a weapon by weapon basis.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky

This has nothing to do with hip firing, When you ADS the site shouldn't be pointed to where you the exactly where the player is pointing it.. to make it harder to use in close range. Either the player would have to adjust it or the character model will center on it.

That's just a plain horrible way to "balance" the EoR. Piling on layers of RnG so that the player has no input is bad game design, and doesn't address the real issue.

And I don't care that there is a delay already because of time to aim. I'm sailng add a delay when aiming, because of how strong guaranteed 90% damage is you shouldn't be able to easily shoot off on someone 3-4 paces away. Because that is better than a shotgun by a significant degree.

You should care. Making the game worse is a bad thing... the shotgun is still ok, but the main reason the EoR is better than the shotgun is because the shotgun was overnerfed. There is no good reason to just gut a weapon instead of addressing the real issues that gun-play in SoT is inherently flawed. The issue's that need to be addressed are things like hitting your target anywhere is all that matters, all the guns have the same ammo pool, all the guns are single shot, and almost all combat happens at the same range CQB. Literally the only gun in the game that suffers from less accuracy is the shotgun... The more accurate you are the more pellets land. With the pistol and EoR ALL that matters is that you hit. Snipers in other games are bad in CQB because you only have one shot, and you need to hit them in head to kill them and that's REALLY hard in close quarters. Snipers have the shortest time to kill(other than shotguns which have the same), but you have to be much more accurate or you're dead. In SoT ALL the weapons are single shot, so you aren't really gonna be out dpsed when you miss. If you make the EoR a long range only weapon, it will instantly become worthless. The only long range encounters are ship to ship and you sure as hell aren't gonna be landing any shots while standing on a bouncing ship against a target on another bunching ship while they are also both moving(unless you are ridiculously lucky.

That^ was kinda a mess, but I don't wanna go back and clean it up.
TL;DR- Right now the weapon balance needs to be addressed collectively. Not on a weapon by weapon basis.

This isn't RNG. Your hole argument is a misapprehension of what I'm suggesting. A lot of games have a zeroing in with the a scope when they don't want the scope to be too effective at close range. Giving it a moment to steady so you can accurately fire is something that is needed to make the EoR less effective in short range.

There is a lot of different ways to make this work, either be slightly off, or have a circle of where your shooting and shrinks to show accuracy, but that wouldn't be consistent with the sights design with no over layed cross hairs.

@savagetwinky Sorry if i misunderstood, but you're saying "zeroing" which is referring to where the round lands in relation to your sights. Are you using "zeroing" to refer to weapon sway that steadies over time or when you hold your breath? or are you referring to bloom?

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky You're saying "zeroing" which is referring to where the round lands in relation to your sights. Are you using "zeroing" to refer to weapon sway that steadies over time or when you hold your breath?

Thats not all zeroing refers to... generally aligning your sights removes the variance from the site to where the bullet lands.. so to align your sites you have to zero the variance. So aligning sights is commonly refereed to as zeroing. But the concept of "zeroing" is just a reduction in variance to 0. Such as when games go from a large reticle and zeros in to the center reducing the simulated recoil or steadying of the weapon.

@savagetwinky

Thats not all zeroing refers to... generally aligning your sights removes the variance from the site to where the bullet lands.. so to align your sites you have to zero the variance.

What you are referring to is called "sight alignment". "zeroing" also called "sighting in" refers to adjusting your scope or sights so that they reference a certain spot on the bullets trajectory. You can "zero" a weapon at different distances such as a 75 yard zero or a 150 yard zero.

So aligning sights is commonly refereed to as zeroing. But the concept of "zeroing" is just a reduction in variance to 0.

sorry, but no. I'm sure there are other people that use this term incorrectly, but it's certainly not the common usage.

This is off topic though. I don't think adding weapon swat is inherently bad, but in this game it's just redundant, and doesn't work for what you want to fix. Weapon sway if used to make it harder to shoot longer distances it has little to no affect when shooting at closer targets.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky

Thats not all zeroing refers to... generally aligning your sights removes the variance from the site to where the bullet lands.. so to align your sites you have to zero the variance.

What you are referring to is called "sight alignment". "zeroing" also called "sighting in" refers to adjusting your scope or sights so that they reference a certain spot on the bullets trajectory. You can "zero" a weapon at different distances such as a 75 yard zero or a 150 yard zero.

So aligning sights is commonly refereed to as zeroing. But the concept of "zeroing" is just a reduction in variance to 0.

sorry, but no. I'm sure there are other people that use this term incorrectly, but it's certainly not the common usage.

Zeroing in has nothing to do with guns on its own... zeroing in can be a lot of different things, even aiming you can say I'm zeroing in on a target for artillery each shot can lead to better accuracy. You can zero in on a target while aiming a sniper rifle... you can zero in on someone with a camera.

Or use it like this, the news media has zeroed in on trump and his private life...

zeroing is synonymous with "to target someone/something". To reduce the difference or variability to 0. So aiming your reducing x/y to 0 on relative to your target. Which is where the term zeroing comes from. When your aligning your weapon sites your reducing the difference of the sight and some intersect path to 0.

This is an argument of semantics without fully understanding the term zeroing. Zeroing in common usage has nothing to do with gun sights specifically. The gun definition is a secondary and less common usage.

This is off topic though. I don't think adding weapon swat is inherently bad, but in this game it's just redundant, and doesn't work for what you want to fix. Weapon sway if used to make it harder to shoot longer distances it has little to no affect when shooting at closer targets.

First I never said it should have a large affect.. second it will have an affect depending on the amount of zeroing or steadying once the weapon is raised. So your arguing against the amount of weapon sway you chose.

Secondly, they are not redundant. If we are talking about nerfing the EoR in close distances without making it impossible to use you need to break up the time to aim between aiming the weapon and steadying the shot. By doing this it allows the game to still feel responsive allowing you to get into the scope quickly and track your target but forcing players to take a moment before shooting. It works for long/short range targets. And I don't see this affecting long range to a degree. Its a common mechanic in most games.

@savagetwinky

First I never said it should have a large affect.. second it will have an affect depending on the amount of zeroing or steadying once the weapon is raised. So your arguing against the amount of weapon sway you chose.

You are trying to make EoR better for long range than close range correct? If that is the case then what i'm saying is that adding weapon sway to the EoR will have the opposite affect. Weapon sway is to make long range engagements more difficult. If you want to make EoR worse at short range, you would want to do something like increase scope zoom or reduce hip-fire accuracy. The EoR is bad enough at long range as it is.

Secondly, they are not redundant.

100% it is.... Adding weapon sway in a game where your character is already swaying 99% of the time is redundant.

If we are talking about nerfing the EoR in close distances without making it impossible to use you need to break up the time to aim between aiming the weapon and steadying the shot.

What? Why? The problem is hip firing right? Not that people are aiming? People aren't scoping in when they are in close quarters.

@betsill

Hipfire as I've already stated in this thread is not the major issue of EoR. Have you forgetten the initial comment you responded to that prompted this discussion between us specifically?

I think people are overestimating the power of the EoR, especially hipfiring, its really not that accurate unless your hugging someone and then it really doesn't matter.

And again, your only considering 1 aspect of the two mechanics. Splitting the time to aim to into two different parts has benefits. By your definition all the weapons should have the same reload time because its redundant with balancing when you have a delay to aim. The balance should all be built into aiming down sights!

I bet you just thought well thats absurd... if people only hip fire then the guns wouldn't be balanced... the different ways of balancing weapons that we are talking about are widely used in many games.

For instance you could just increase the time to aim... that could just make the EoR feel clunky and unfun to play. Or you can add a bit of sway so its not entirely accurate firing immediately so it will still be equivalent to hip firing... which is already unreliable in that short to mid range. So the first thing I'd do to avoid that is aim sooner than I normally would... and if its still to powerful we can add a little sway to movement without effecting the time to enter scope.

So sure, if your ignorant you might only be looking at how long it takes to aim and assuming all reloading/aiming/zeroing in on a target are all redundant because they all balance the time between effective shots.. but they balance it in distinct and important ways that function differently and can be utilized differently.

What I'm saying. On a whole... the EoR needs to have a bit of a nerf with 90% guaranteed damage and they should do it by making it a bit harder to use. Its easily why PC players dominate XBOX players. Its too powerful in short and long range because of how easy it is to quickly aim.

@savagetwinky

Hipfire as I've already stated in this thread is not the major issue of EoR.

What does that matter. I don't think it's the biggest issue(which I think is a general gun-play/dmg problem), but the fact that you stated something doesn't mean a damn thing...

Splitting the time to aim to into two different parts has benefits.

It's not splitting aim time. You have the aim time that already exists and then adding a sort of mini game to make aiming more difficult. You can still shoot as soon as you finish aim and hit the target if you zoom in directly on the enemy/control the sway(which we ALREADY DO btw). Adding weapon sway is literally adding sway(from weapon) on top of SWAY(from boat)

By your definition all the weapons should have the same reload time because its redundant with balancing when you have a delay to aim.

Uh... no... like not at all... reload and aiming serve 2 completely different functions other than just affecting the time between shots... (which you go on to say right after, so this was just a really bad strawman.)

What I'm saying. On a whole... the EoR needs to have a bit of a nerf with 90% guaranteed damage and they should do it by making it a bit harder to use.

Agreed, but as long as shot placement doesn't matter, it will always be "which gun can reliably output the most DPS.". The only thing that matters in SoT close range fights. The pistol and EoR both suck at hitting ranged enemies. If you make the EoR worse than the pistol in close quarters no one will ever use EoR it until the real issues with the guns are addressed. Everyone can use the same guns are you can pick 2 out of ONLY 4 options. Right now plenty of people pick the pistol over the EoR since the difference really isn't that much when you take into account the EoR current weaknesses compared to the pistol. In a dual of pistol vs EoR the pistol will almost always win because they both take 2 shots to kill and the pistol has a faster reload and faster/easier aim.

Its easily why PC players dominate XBOX players.

Obviously... This has absolutely nothing to do with weapon balance though. They have all the same stuff we do. PC players will always destroy console players. Forced crossplay was a mistake.

@genuine-heather If any one weapon is the "go to " then it's not too balanced is it ?

As it is now, I see people using all sorts of weapons. The other night I was really struggling against a Galleon full of Blunderbuss users.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@crafek

I still dont understand the proper arguments against EoR nerfs

FTFY fam.

Nope.

@crafek exactly XD

@betsill LONG POST BEWARE - I feel as if you contradict yourself a lot and/or not looking at it at a more practical point of view.

Such as

as long as shot placement doesn't matter, it will always be "which gun can reliably output the most DPS.". The only thing that matters in SoT close range fights. The pistol and EoR both suck at hitting ranged enemies.

With

In a dual of pistol vs EoR the pistol will almost always win because they both take 2 shots to kill and the pistol has a faster reload and faster/easier aim.

Then the blunderbuss is king (If we do it this literal) and completely over-valuing the 24 longer to reload of frames of the sniper. You are also forgetting underwater fights (Which is very common).

But how about this:

but the main reason the EoR is better than the shotgun is because the shotgun was overnerfed.

So, was the EoR weaker because the blunderbuss was too strong? Again, taking things too technically and not practical at all. Blunderbuss still 1-shot kills, but it is more practical/consistent to 2-hit kill with the EoR as it gives you ton of other benefits.

You also argued of the fact that guns only need to hit anywhere on the body to do its damage as a bad thing. Reflecting what you said at the beginning:

If they added a headshot mult then we could talk about a small body shot nerf.

Headshotting in other games has mostly always resulted in an instant kill. It also furthers the gap between controllers and M&K, which I see why they opted for a more friendly method, which is having no difference in where you shoot them. This then has you argue of how its all about hitting and being close quarters, which makes me question where blunderbuss falls in that argument again.

But anyway, You dont actually disagree with nerfing the EoR

The only change it really needs is the reduced hipfire accuracy maybe

I agree about hipfire accuracy.

So what is the problem?

The guns in SoT are, very simple. They dont have headshot multipliers, they only have 5 shots, all reloads are almost the same. That is the Standard that I was mentioning at my original post.

With that standard, the only differences are in some numbers and others a uniqueness. The pistol does less damage than both guns but is easy to wield. The blunderbuss has a spread of pellets that is effective close, but not at all Long. The EoR has an accurate Aim for long range, does 80 if you hit, is pretty much the same as the flintlock... what the hell is its drawback?

That is the conversation, trying to reduce the EoR to its intended role because it currently satisfies a blunderbuss mindset as well as its own Long Range mindset. What is more damning about this is how players are opting to use the EoR for that blunderbuss mindset.

I personally do not find a 2 hit combo of a long range shot with an EoR and pistol to instant kill be a problem. Instead, I find it a problem that EoR is being used as a short range weapon that trumps the other 2 guns.

Here is a thought:
Pistol- Bullet now starts to drop sooner (To make EoR more desirable for the range)
EoR- Hipfire accuracy is now a complete gamble
Blunderbuss- Hip fire accuracy is the same as aim accuracy.

Even at close range, the EoR wont be useless because what a player wants to do then is to aim down. This is what is absolutely Ok. If he can forego the drawbacks of a terrible hip-fire accuracy with simply tunneling in at CQC, then so be it. (Question then will be; How easy is it to ignore the bad hip-fire accuracy with aiming down?`Is aiming too quick to give accuracy? etc. I dont think it currently is that easy, so after a bad hipfire nerf it should be ok.)

Even with all that said, someone is going to come here and say how the EoR is not an issue, or hasnt any without giving an argument as to how or why that is as opposed to my argument.

@betsill you make a good argument and I do believe you are actually going in depth with your thoughts, but you seem to wish for an overhaul. I would too, but I try to stay within the boundaries of what we have and figure out a solution there. That boundary is of course, the very simple gunplay as well as swordplay because the heart of the game is adventure and not just combat.

Sorry for the long post, I just always feel the need to repeat myself for some reason but differently ._.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@savagetwinky

Hipfire as I've already stated in this thread is not the major issue of EoR.

What does that matter. I don't think it's the biggest issue(which I think is a general gun-play/dmg problem), but the fact that you stated something doesn't mean a damn thing...

Splitting the time to aim to into two different parts has benefits.=

Your forgetting what I'm responding to.

What? Why? The problem is hip firing right? Not that people are aiming? People aren't scoping in when they are in close quarters.

And your also forgetting what prompted this conversation we were having, that I don't believe the hipfire is nearly important enough to worry about. Its unreliable just a few paces out... but aiming in cqc is super easy because you can aim and fire immediately which is next to no delay, and no accuracy penalty. I suggested adding a "very small delay centering when aiming" and you suggested there is already a delay. And your trying to suggest that recoil mechanics that other games use to simulate zeroing in either after firing/moving/aiming are completely redundant with the time it takes to enter the scope or aim the weapon.

I was asked how I would fix it... assuming given what I said is potentially correct... So I'd reduce the accuracy scoped immediately after aiming. Either through a momentary sway or need to steady the weapon. This will not affect at range shots greatly because you will not be firing immediately anyway.

People DO scope in when they are in close quarters. You are wrong. The EoR isn't nearly as effective because of no scoping.. because like the shotgun you need to be next to the person for it to be a reliable tactic.

It's not splitting aim time. You have the aim time that already exists and then adding a sort of mini game to make aiming more difficult. You can still shoot as soon as you finish aim and hit the target if you zoom in directly on the enemy/control the sway(which we ALREADY DO btw). Adding weapon sway is literally adding sway(from weapon) on top of SWAY(from boat)

Of course it adds aim time, or changes effective fire rate. I've never suggesting adding permanent sway while aiming though, I'm saying have the gun be inaccurate immediately entering scope and zero in on the accuracy after steadying so its not as easy to scope in cqc on the move.

Uh... no... like not at all... reload and aiming serve 2 completely different functions other than just affecting the time between shots... (which you go on to say right after, so this was just a really bad strawman.)

Reloading speed changes effective fire rate. Same with sway/recoil. Same with how long it takes to aim down sights.

Its not a strawman. You are literally saying a form of zeroing accuracy is redundant with the time it takes to aim down sight. Its objectively ignoring the different aspects of firing effectively. Reload/ADS time/Zeroing time are all different ways of managing a guns effectiveness in a fight. They all serve different purposes. Saying ADS time and zeroing are redundant shows you do not understand the distinctions they offer. Its not a strawman man to show the comparison of reloading vs ads time. The point is to illustrate the fallacy in your logic where your ignoring important and different aspects of mechanics that serve similar balancing purposes but do it in different ways at different points.

Agreed, but as long as shot placement doesn't matter, it will always be "which gun can reliably output the most DPS.". The only thing that matters in SoT close range fights. The pistol and EoR both suck at hitting ranged enemies. If you make the EoR worse than the pistol in close quarters no one will ever use EoR it until the real issues with the guns are addressed. Everyone can use the same guns are you can pick 2 out of ONLY 4 options. Right now plenty of people pick the pistol over the EoR since the difference really isn't that much when you take into account the EoR current weaknesses compared to the pistol. In a dual of pistol vs EoR the pistol will almost always win because they both take 2 shots to kill
and the pistol has a faster reload and faster/easier aim.

People will use the EoR if its a little worse.. its still a better ranged weapon and there are points where the range comes in handy. For instance

Obviously... This has absolutely nothing to do with weapon balance though. They have all the same stuff we do. PC players will always destroy console players. Forced crossplay was a mistake.

Yes it has to do with weapon balance. Because even on the PC the EoR is easily the best weapon for most scenarios. Its not balanced. And its super unbalanced for xbox players who's controllers probably limit the usage of the EoR and make it balanced.

@crafek That is a long post lol but i'm glad you recognize the arguments against.
About what i said that you thought I was contradiction myself, that is both taken out of context and i didn't explain myself because of both context and not wanting to lol. When I said that the "most dps" i was referring to weapons and dmg out in the open world, where as when I when i said "in a dual" i was talking about in a vacuum with each player only using one weapon. both take 2 shots to kill, so the one that can shoot faster wins. out in the world you really want the extra dmg to take up more bananas. With EoR if you hit and they eat a banana the second will still kill them. The pistol won't.
I finish replying to the rest when i get back.

@betsill said in Eye of Reach is finally OBVIOUSLY too strong!:

@crafek That is a long post lol but i'm glad you recognize the arguments against.
About what i said that you thought I was contradiction myself, that is both taken out of context and i didn't explain myself because of both context and not wanting to lol. When I said that the "most dps" i was referring to weapons and dmg out in the open world, where as when I when i said "in a dual" i was talking about in a vacuum with each player only using one weapon. both take 2 shots to kill, so the one that can shoot faster wins. out in the world you really want the extra dmg to take up more bananas. With EoR if you hit and they eat a banana the second will still kill them. The pistol won't.
I finish replying to the rest when i get back.

You can fire 2 shots with the pistol before someone finishes their banana so 2 pistol shots are effective if you can get both shots off... this includes aiming.

@betsill Sorry about saying you contradicting yourself, I think I actually am completely wrong there now that I am re-reading stuff. Its just the vacum thing that youve just mentioned is what gets me to find these examples to be impractical. It is why in a vacum the blunderbuss is "king" as it would kill in one shot. Then, you would have to specify the vacuum to adhere to the challenges that only a pistol and EoR would face which makes things oddly too specific. By impractical I also just mean, it being theory, or on paper.

In gameplay, things play out very differently and thats where variables start to take play which is more than just dps.

@crafek

So, was the EoR weaker because the blunderbuss was too strong? Again, taking things too technically and not practical at all. Blunderbuss still 1-shot kills, but it is more practical/consistent to 2-hit kill with the EoR as it gives you ton of other benefits.

The EoR was buffed wasn't it? I didn't use it very much back then, so i'm not sure. I think the blunder was fine back then. a vast majority of fights happen in pretty much melee range, so obviously the shotgun should be the stronger gun choice overall. The blunder kills in 1 shot still, but it's kill range is shorter than the swords melee range from what i can tell which makes it very unreliable and only work for sneaking up on people. Usually I kill people in 3 shots or so because it's dmg drop off is pretty bad, and you have to stay out of range of the sword or you get rooted and just have to accept your death.

But anyway, You dont actually disagree with nerfing the EoR

It's not that simple. I think it's fine overall, but I think a small hipfire nerf(maybe increase it's bloom by x2 from what it and the pistol have) would be.... ok... i just don't think it's an overall good idea unless the problems with the guns are addressed first. I would rather just leave it as is. Right now, there will always be a "best gun". The game needs more means to define the different guns strengths(headshot mult, better bullet trajectory, giving EoR a faster flying bullet, better scopes, ability to stabilize EoR, removing shotgun hipfire bloom, etc). The cutlass is by far the most problematic weapon in the game and nerfing any of the weapon will just exacerbate that fact. If you think the EoR is too strong then use. No need to knee jerk a nerf when their are far more pressing problems with PvP balance and we don't know where the EoR will end up after those more important issues are dealt with.

That is the conversation, trying to reduce the EoR to its intended role because it currently satisfies a blunderbuss mindset as well as its own Long Range mindset. What is more damning about this is how players are opting to use the EoR for that blunderbuss mindset.

That really is a big part because the blunder is so weak now. the blunder isn't a "close range weapon" now, it's a "REALLY close range" weapon. If you nerf the EoR, people won't use the blunder, they will switch the the pistol, because even the pistol is better at close range from my experience. Also, it's really not that good at long range. I'ts better than the other guns don't get me wrong, but long range combat just isn't a viable option right now for any weapon. You have the boats swaying and on the move that make hitting a target nearly impossible, but even if you hit it really doesn't matter because you have to do again to kill someone and that's NOT gonna happen.

Here is a thought:
Pistol- Bullet now starts to drop sooner (To make EoR more desirable for the range)

Doesn't need to drop sooner it needs to drop more reliably. right now the bullet doesn't really drop so much as it flies almost perfectly flat and then drops off a cliff. It's poor enough at long range that it needs no help at being worse.

EoR- Hipfire accuracy is now a complete gamble

It needs a buff to range to compensate or it won't be worth using at all. smoothing out the bullet drop, increasing travel speed, and a head-shot mult should do it. heck I wouldn't mind if the dmg was reduced a little for body shots if I can kill them in one shot with a headshot. Also, removed the knockback... it's just dumb.

Blunderbuss- Hip fire accuracy is the same as aim accuracy.

100% agree, but also a little dmg would be nice.

Even with all that said, someone is going to come here and say how the EoR is not an issue, or hasnt any without giving an argument as to how or why that is as opposed to my argument.

It's not that it's not an issue it's that ALL the weapons are the issue and singling out the EoR just doesn't make sense. For the short term, the EoR feels really good to use now and even if it's a little too strong it's not a big deal. Everyone has the option to take it, and there are only 2 other weapons competing for the slot.

you seem to wish for an overhaul.

"overhaul" seems a little strong of a term. Headshots mults are a staple in all shooters. The other changes are also pretty minor otherwise, but they will have a big impact.

I would too, but I try to stay within the boundaries of what we have and figure out a solution there.

I can definitely understand that, but nothing is really gonna be solved with this current designs limitations. It's just gonna be another weapon that highly preferred second to the cutlass. If the pistol becomes everyone primary weapon after nerfing EoR do we nerf it too?

That boundary is of course, the very simple gunplay as well as swordplay because the heart of the game is adventure and not just combat.

The combat is the biggest part of how you experience the game other than maybe ship sailing. It's apart of almost everything you do, so it's VERY important that it's as good as possible.

Sorry for the long post, I just always feel the need to repeat myself for some reason but differently ._.

no worries lol same.

@crafek No worries. Even i kinda got lost at some points while trying so many ways to get my ideas across to savage and trying to understand what he was actually saying lol.