Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

Hey! If this is your first visit on symthic.com, also check out our weapon damage charts.
Currently we have charts for Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,678)

Posts: 1,413

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

11

Monday, August 19th 2013, 12:56pm

You rarely saw an Engineer or Assault with them since they did not add mobility or firepower there. My fear is that off the PDWs coming obsolete, and therefore the Engineer either being underplayed or forced into carbines, which will not be working as intended if the standard guns are not used by the class..


Engineer cannot become underplayed, and the weapons they use, the weapons anyone use, are defined by the ranges and types of opponents they will be engaging at / engaging. So long as different types of weapon are more effective at different ranges and scenarios, then different weapon types will be used, to what extent is defined by the ranges present on the maps that engineers are required for. They may be "forced" to use one weapon type more often than the others in the same way we're "forced" to use one kit more often than the others - because it's the most effective solution to a given scenario, and that's not necessarily undesirable.

You're saying that if the carbines and or PDWs do not have a sufficient level of anti-infantry ability they may be used less, when engineer is not a kit used in response to infantry, the engineer kit, is desirable because of its ability to combat or promote the use of vehicles thanks to the gadgets and other equipment they are given. Engineer kits are a response to vehicles, or the possibility that vehicles will be used in a given location. So long as the gadgets / abilities / equipment of the engineer class can be used to more effectively assist in the defeat or success of the vehicles in play than the other kits then they cannot become underplayed.

Assault rarely required the use of PDWs because they are the primary kit that assists and defeats infantry in the same way that engineers are to vehicles, they, by definition, should be, and are, armed with the most potent general purpose anti-infantry weapons. Almost every PDW is extremely limited in it's effective application which makes them, generally speaking, a poor choice for a general purpose anti-infantry class. However, engineers do make extensive use of PDWs, primarily the shotguns ( slugs in particular ) the AS-VAL and the MP7/M5K/P90. ( which pretty much covers all the types of PDW honestly)

Primarily, the carbines and DMRs will benefit the supports and recons, the two supportive classes whose weapons are very good at what they do, but terrible at everything else ( and not good at a very broad range of tasks ) for use when their supportive powers are required/desired outside of the areas their weapons are usually at all viable.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


Posts: 1,614

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Guilin Peaks, Finland

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

12

Monday, August 19th 2013, 1:25pm

but I wish BF4 had continued giving Engineers carbines that could compete with assault rifles just as they done in BFBC2/BF3.


ARs have an edge over engie carbines in BF3 at longer distances, which is the way it should be. Engineers must give up some capabilities (pro/anti-infantry) to gain something other kits cannot have (pro/anti-vehicle).

Edit xtra: btw, I'm not getting you 100%, BF4 is giving engies carbines as they are "all kit", no?

We know AK5C, that was like 20-16.7DMG with 700RPM? Try to win CQ fight with CZ3A1, 1000RPM 20-12.5DMG.


AFAIS, the most probable outcome of a vast majority of gunfights is determined before any shots are fired. In the very few "fair" mano-a-mano situations, considering equal skills, the player with most suitable weapon should have a greater probability of winning. I.e., don't go to CQ with AK5C, or if you repeatedly do, respawn with a better choice.
"Less is more? How can that be? How could less be more, that's impossible. More is more." Yngwie Malmsten
"Many bullets help." WoopsyYaya
"most rhetorically legitimate ad hominem 2015" ToTheSun!

Labby

Moderator

(6,444)

Posts: 1,941

Date of registration
: Sep 26th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: State of Confusion

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

13

Monday, August 19th 2013, 1:33pm

We know AK5C, that was like 20-16.7DMG with 700RPM? Try to win CQ fight with CZ3A1, 1000RPM 20-12.5DMG.
If every PDW is going to be such a bullethose in CQ there's no need to worry about balance, carbines are competent up close but not versus PDWs imho.

The CZ3A1 in alpha had 16.7-11 damage.

So at close range the CZ kills in around 0.3s, while the AK5 takes 0.34s. And the AK5 has better ADS spread, less spread increase per shot, and about half the recoil.
[Aetherblade Medium Boots]

JOIN THE TEAMSPEAK (L)EVOLUTION: teamsym.nitrado.net


14

Monday, August 19th 2013, 1:39pm


ARs have an edge over engie carbines in BF3 at longer distances


Scar-H , ACR


Engineers must give up some capabilities (pro/anti-infantry) to gain something other kits cannot have (pro/anti-vehicle).


C4/Mortar/Xbow/M320



Edit xtra: btw, I'm not getting you 100%, BF4 is giving engies carbines as they are "all kit", no?


Yeah , but they will be mediocre , I'm going on DICEs previous track record of any all kit weapon , with the exception of the all kit G3a3(which I hope they do in BF4)

Posts: 1,614

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Guilin Peaks, Finland

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

15

Monday, August 19th 2013, 2:10pm

@paddyotool
Yes, ok, I'm with you in hoping that guns like Scar-H (my Scar-H :love: ) will remain available to engies. Re /Mortar/Xbow/M320, good luck going all out anti-vehicle with them :D. C4 is fun and works against noobs, but is much more situational/unreliable against darktans. RPGs + mine speedbumps > gimmickry.
"Less is more? How can that be? How could less be more, that's impossible. More is more." Yngwie Malmsten
"Many bullets help." WoopsyYaya
"most rhetorically legitimate ad hominem 2015" ToTheSun!

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,678)

Posts: 1,413

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

16

Monday, August 19th 2013, 2:19pm


ARs have an edge over engie carbines in BF3 at longer distances


Scar-H , ACR


Engineers must give up some capabilities (pro/anti-infantry) to gain something other kits cannot have (pro/anti-vehicle).


C4/Mortar/Xbow/M320


Two carbines that are more effective at range than the majority of OTHER CARBINES NOT ASSAULT RIFLES does not give the engineer parity at range with the assault class. Almost every assault rifle has a better spread than either of them, the M16A3 kills FASTER than the SCAR-H at any distance. At worst, the AEK has identical spread to the scar-H but again it still also has a better TTK, and that is a close range AR, NOT a long ranged one, the existence of carbines that perform better at range than other carbines does NOT mean the engineer is able to compete with the assault class at distance, the ARs are, in general, more accurate and kill faster over all distances than the carbines. This what they are supposed to do, and actually do.

C4 / Mortars / Xbows and M320s CAN damage vehicles, yes, but that does not make them the most effective tools to destroy tanks, engineers have the best tools to destroy or assist vehicles ( including tanks ) that is what they are there for, Engineer gives up the supreme infantry fighting ( at all ranges, but especially past close range ) and infantry assist tools that the assault kit has, and in return, gains greater vehicle assist and destroying tools than other classes.

C4 / Mortars / xbows and M320s are useful for sure, but that doesn't make them viable AT on their own, because they are not. Not even C4 is a reasonably viable AT weapon on it's own, it requires other assistance to be even remotely effective or reliable.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


17

Monday, August 19th 2013, 2:30pm


Two carbines that are more effective at range than the majority of OTHER CARBINES NOT ASSAULT RIFLES does not give the engineer parity at range with the assault class. Almost every assault rifle has a better spread than either of them, the M16A3 kills FASTER than the SCAR-H at any distance. At worst, the AEK has identical spread to the scar-H but again it still also has a better TTK, and that is a close range AR, NOT a long ranged one, the existence of carbines that perform better at range than other carbines does NOT mean the engineer is able to compete with the assault class at distance, the ARs are, in general, more accurate and kill faster over all distances than the carbines. This what they are supposed to do, and actually do.


That's nice and all , but I never said carbines were assault rifles , I said they can compete with assault rifles. I roll through people using M16s/AEKs etc etc all day every day using just a carbine regardless of their crappy spread or min damage, the reason I can do this is becuase they have an equal max damage model.

Posts: 1,614

Date of registration
: Apr 12th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Guilin Peaks, Finland

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

18

Monday, August 19th 2013, 2:38pm

...the reason I can do this is becuase they have an equal max damage model.

Or because you just are a better/cleverer/quicker/more experienced/better positioned/etc. player than the bulk of your opponents? I think gun stats bias the pokefight outcome quite rarely.
"Less is more? How can that be? How could less be more, that's impossible. More is more." Yngwie Malmsten
"Many bullets help." WoopsyYaya
"most rhetorically legitimate ad hominem 2015" ToTheSun!

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,678)

Posts: 1,413

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

19

Monday, August 19th 2013, 2:44pm


Two carbines that are more effective at range than the majority of OTHER CARBINES NOT ASSAULT RIFLES does not give the engineer parity at range with the assault class. Almost every assault rifle has a better spread than either of them, the M16A3 kills FASTER than the SCAR-H at any distance. At worst, the AEK has identical spread to the scar-H but again it still also has a better TTK, and that is a close range AR, NOT a long ranged one, the existence of carbines that perform better at range than other carbines does NOT mean the engineer is able to compete with the assault class at distance, the ARs are, in general, more accurate and kill faster over all distances than the carbines. This what they are supposed to do, and actually do.


That's nice and all , but I never said carbines were assault rifles , I said they can compete with assault rifles. I roll through people using M16s/AEKs etc etc all day every day using just a carbine regardless of their crappy spread or min damage, the reason I can do this is becuase they have an equal max damage model.


They do not compete though, they are less effective, in a competition between an assault with a carbine and an assault with an AR, the AR will win, it is fact that the M16A3 is more powerful than the M4A1. The carbines don't compete with the ARs for the top slot of infantry general purpose weapons, they lose, to ARs.

Certainly it is possible for someone armed with X to "roll through" people armed with Y and Z even if Y and Z are better weapons, but you would be "rolling through" them faster and more efficiently using an AR equivalent of carbine X ( not to mention the assaults more powerful equipment and gadgets against infantry ). And the max damage model being identical only has ANY relevance at 8m or less ( essentially ), and if you're purely engaging at ~8m or less, a shotgun would be more effective.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


20

Monday, August 19th 2013, 3:15pm



They do not compete though, they are less effective, in a competition between an assault with a carbine and an assault with an AR, the AR will win, it is fact that the M16A3 is more powerful than the M4A1. The carbines don't compete with the ARs for the top slot of infantry general purpose weapons, they lose, to ARs.

Certainly it is possible for someone armed with X to "roll through" people armed with Y and Z even if Y and Z are better weapons, but you would be "rolling through" them faster and more efficiently using an AR equivalent of carbine X ( not to mention the assaults more powerful equipment and gadgets against infantry ). And the max damage model being identical only has ANY relevance at 8m or less ( essentially ), and if you're purely engaging at ~8m or less, a shotgun would be more effective.


This is all based of figures and weapon stats , not my personal experience , I don't go by weapon stats ever as IMO they are not tailored to the individuals play style. I use the class that has the weapons that give me a biggest advantage on every map except Metro , that class is Engineer , the reason I can compete with Assault is due to the Carbines , I can not perform the same when I use PDW's or Shotguns as play as Engineer.