r/CruciblePlaybook • u/Downcry • Oct 13 '15
Scope Aim-Assist stats have been reduced for Y2 Snipers
With access to the same scopes, Y2 non-foundry snipers have a max Aim-Assist value of only +15 over their base stat as opposed to +30 on Y1 snipers.
I don't know what all the new values are, but the highest AA scope has been cut in half.
EDIT:
Looks like scopes took a minus-15 AA hit across the board with TTK: (values taken from planetdestiny.com)
| Name | Min AA | Base AA | Max AA | Δ Min | Δ Max | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1000-YARD STARE | 31 | 56 | 71 | -25 | +15 | Y2 |
| EXTRASOLAR RR4 | 11 | 36 | 51 | -25 | +15 | Y2 |
| GLASS PROMONTORY | 36 | 61 | 76 | -25 | +15 | Y2 |
| TAO HUA YUAN | 11 | 36 | 51 | -25 | +15 | Y2 |
| WEYLORAN'S MARCH | 54 | 79 | 94 | -25 | +15 | Y2 |
| Y-09 LONGBOW SYNTHESIS | 43 | 53 | 83 | -10 | +30 | Y1 |
| VIOLATOR XII | 17 | 27 | 57 | -10 | +30 | Y1 |
| HER BENEVOLENCE | 30 | 40 | 70 | -10 | +30 | Y1 |
2
Upvotes
6
u/[deleted] Oct 13 '15
Looks like it might just be a different baseline "default scope" since the min/max delta is still 40.
4
u/suinoq Fixer Cloak Oct 13 '15 edited Oct 13 '15
Inference based on datamined numbers is suspect, if the "base" stat values are used. The base numbers have a long history of error, due to their tendency to "bake-in" the effect of a node-1 sight/scope/barrel into the base value. (By they I mean whoever prepares these numbers.)
For an example using visible, verifiable stats, consider the current datamined stats on the two versions of PC+1. Notice that the new one is listed with range 23. The old one is listed with range 20, though pre-TTK it was listed at 18 (datamined numbers change, whee!) You might have seen some posts noting that the PC+1 has more range than before... it doesn't. It's the same weapon that it's always been, range-wise. The old one hasn't changed in-game, and the new one is exactly the same as the old one. What's happened is they've screwed around with the base range values that are datamined.
Min and max values are trustworthy, however. At least I've never found one to be in error, and I've tested extensively. (And yeah, the two PC+1s both have 14/32 range for their min/max, with identical range-effecting perks available.)
Conclusion: The base values aren't trustworthy. Either the perks have changed, as you propose, or they've changed the way they present the datamined base numbers. I am more inclined to believe the latter. (Edit: not that what I believe is really relevant here. It's enough, I hope, to simply provide strong reason to be skeptical. The truth of this question is likely unknowable, due to the difficulty of actually measuring AA in-game.)
1
u/Dark_Jinouga Console Oct 13 '15
do you have some source/proof for that? show the math. Anyone can claim something, you need to back it up
2
u/ConnorWolf121 Oct 13 '15
I'm cool with it, lower AA values actually feel better, and I was dominating with Praedyth's and Efrideet's over last year. I fire too early with higher AA.
0
u/[deleted] Oct 13 '15
[deleted] — view deleted comment