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

  • "iMagUdspEllr" started this thread

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Sep 12th 2015

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

1

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 4:54am

Battlefield Drastic Weapon and Gadget Tweaks

I have gotten into arguments with people who don't seem to care about weapon damage and other technical aspects of the game on other forums. I assume that this community is more discerning.

I have been disappointed in every FPS I can think of in recent history because the way the weapons are designed is so far out of touch with reality it is crazy.

In BF, even in hardcore mode where player HP is lowered to 60, headshots are basically pointless if you don't have a sniper rifle or DMR. The brain is the weak point on a human but for some reason it only confers ~2x damage multiplier when it is hit. So when you shoot someone in the head with an AR-160 (which does the same amount of damage as most rifles in its class) it only does 36-49 damage. This means that in normal mode you would actually have to shoot someone in the head 3 times to kill them vs 5-6 anywhere on their person. That might sound reasonable to only have to shoot someone 3 times vs 6 times, but it isn't reasonable at all. The head is basically 1/8 the size of the body. If the head were half the size of the body then it would be worthwhile to bother to shoot at it (but you would only be breaking even at that point). But, as it is now you might as well not bother because you have to be eight times more accurate just to be rewarded with only using 1/2 the shots (instead of 1/8 the shots... which would be rounded up to 1 shot).

As I have already stated, in hardcore mode we still have the same problem. The player health is lowered to 60 which means you would need 2 shots in the head to kill with the AR-160. But, if you just shoot them anywhere on the body it takes only, 3-4 shots to kill them. What? Somehow the ratio between shots to kill in the body vs shots to kill in the head is even worse. There is no incentive to shoot someone in the head because you have to hit a target twice in a row that is eight times smaller. Or you can be eight times less accurate and spray four shots anywhere on their body.

The other issue that I have is that the weapon damage and damage drop off doesn't make any sense. A .45 ACP fired from a 1911 does 33.6 points of damage (at the muzzle) and a 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester) fired from a SCAR-H does 33 points of damage (at the muzzle). For your information, a .45 ACP bullet has an approximate muzzle energy of 500 ft. lbs. A 7.62x51mm has an approximate muzzle energy of 2,500 ft. lbs. Muzzle energy doesn't translate to damage against the target in a completely linear fashion because very powerful bullets tend to pass completely through (which means a lot of energy was not spent damaging the target). However, that is 5 times more energy, yet the 1911 is more powerful. This makes absolutely no sense at all.

As far as the damage drop off, bullets don't turn into marshmellows at 50m. Even pistol bullets fired from a pistol that are shot at a high enough angle can travel a mile. 7.62x51mm drops below 500 ft. lbs of energy (you know the same amount a 1911 has at the muzzle) at about 1000m, not 60m.

So, why does this matter to players? Well, since they have designed every weapon to be about as effective as a super soaker beyond 60m (less than that depending on how much cover there is) that means that you basically may as well not bother shooting anyone if you aren't right on top of them. No, I'm not talking about camping or sniping. I'm just talking about that you are on a point, you can see them at the next point, but you might as well not even take a shot because you will have to hit them several times just to kill them. But, what is most likely going to happen is that you will shoot them once, it will have no practical effect (because even if it was a headshot it won't kill them), and they will run behind cover and the assault guy on their squad will throw down a heal. Result? You, less bullets and you have given away your position. Them, absolutely nothing happened and now they know where you are.

So, the game basically boils down to wait until you are 40m or less (or whatever distance that allows you to pump 4-6 shots into them in one or two bursts) and then kill one person and probably get killed because you are right in front of the enemy. When guns have such pathetic damage you can't do anything but sprint into short-range and then spray until you are empty. In reality you are more likely to use cover and shoot from a distance (because a real gun is actually a threat beyond close range) and methodically move up the field and cover people that are further ahead than you. But, you can't cover anyone unless you are standing right next to them because the damage is either too low or drops off too quickly.

There are also a few other things that ruin the game for me but I can understand why some people might not want to get rid of them. I don't like Medkits because they allow people to use their bodies as bullet sensors. They can just run around without a care in the world, get tagged once (and thereby know where the enemy is), sprint to cover and then get all patched up by a health pack... then their squad spawns on them and they mobilize against the fool who didn't bother to get within 40m before shooting. I also don't like repair tools because two engineers can sit behind a tank repairing it while their buddy inside the tank can just fire round after round without any risk of being destroyed. Even with the repair tool nerfs it is ridiculous. A lone player with a rocket launcher of some kind will just get blown away. Two guys with rocket launchers can't deliver enough damage to the tank without getting blown away. There is basically no point in carrying a rocket launcher because the tank team stands no chance of losing to you. If you get close the engineers outside shoot you. If you stay far away your rockets are less likely to hit and the tank will probably home in on you and blow you away before you can destroy it. I have seen this in several games where a tank team is basically invincible to people that have dedicated anti-tank weapons. Your only hope is to use another vehicle or pray that the engineers and the tank driver are oblivious to a C4 sneak attack.

In summary, I would like headshots to kill in one shot unless the bullet is a 9mm, .40, .45, or .357 magnum bullet. Kevlar helmets have been shown to effectively stop those bullets. .44 Magnum and .50 AE have muzzle energies equal to some rifle rounds so those should probably kill in one shot. However, they have a larger surface area than rifle bullets so they might be deflected by a helmet. But, it is plausible for them to kill someone in one helmet shot at least via concussive force alone. Helmets are easily penetrated by all rifle rounds. I would like rifles to retain their damage at the muzzle to at least 150m-300m or more depending upon the power of the caliber they shoot. Medkits might not actually be a problem if you could effectively kill people from further away. But, the way it is now you basically end up having to sprint towards the dude that ducked behind cover just to get mowed down by him and his buddies that just spawned as soon as you close in to 40m. I don't see a compromise for the repair tool. It just needs to be removed so that people actually have to bother not getting their tank shot by a rocket. With the repair tool in the game they can just wait for you to shoot your rocket, blow you away, and then repair to full health as if nothing happened. If damage couldn't be waved away with a magic wand tanks couldn't just roll right into the middle of a point because they would probably be destroyed or heavily damaged on contact and they would stay that way, making that tactic way less viable (as it should be).

So, it seems that is the point. They want to force everyone to cluster up <40m away and then blast it out like a digital meat grinder because that is "exciting" (and not extremely stupid tactics).

Thank you for reading my rant/wall of text. I'm interested in hearing what this community thinks of my ideas.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,235

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

2

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 5:12am

This is a video game.

Things are tweaked to suit gameplay.

Things like "pistols turning into marshmellows at 50m" is because 60m is already considered pretty long range given the ballistic properties and map sizes in BF4.

Considering that 17m has tentatively been found to be the average engagement distance, I think it is perfectly reasonable for pistols to fall out of favor at 50m.



Realism serves as a good basis for the portrayal of weapons in BF4.

However, it translates poorly into enjoyable gameplay or creating interesting choices for players.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

  • "iMagUdspEllr" started this thread

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Sep 12th 2015

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

3

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 5:25am

I know it is a game. I thought I did a good job of explaining how it wasn't very fun because the weapon characteristics force you to play one way (rush into close range and blast away like Rambo).

I know things are tweaked to suit gameplay. My point is that the gameplay is terrible because of how things are tweaked. I don't think forcing everyone to rush into shouting distance before being able to effectively kill each other is good gameplay. You might disagree. Let us please talk about that.

I think I might not have been clear. I am talking about rifles having pathetic damage, not pistols. I don't know how you thought that I think pistols are too weak. Rifles are basically worthless past 60m unless you have a DMR or a sniper rifle (and even then you usually still need to score a head shot before they just duck behind cover and heal). I did complain about a 1911 being just as powerful as a rifle, but I wasn't criticizing the effectiveness of pistols. If anything, most of the pistols do far too much damage. But, the pistols have realistic damage drop-offs.

How do you figure the ballistics are fine for battlefield map sizes? The maps are huge. There is no reason that you can't have realistic weapon characteristics. In COD you might have a point, but the maps in battlefield are pretty much realistic sizes.

I am interested to understand why you think an average of 17m engagements is "enjoyable gameplay" or how it gives players "interesting choices". It seems that would not give players any choices and would be an endless meat-grinder with the gameplay being nothing but, "Shoot everything as fast as you can because you are already two feet away from everyone else so you are going to die in half a second regardless."

ETA: To be clear. If guns did more damage at a distance and were more accurate (within reason) engagement distances would open up and actual strategy and tactics would come into play because you aren't forced to zerg each other at 17m all day.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "iMagUdspEllr" (Sep 12th 2015, 5:34am)


NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,156)

Posts: 7,235

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

4

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 6:43am

ITT low RPM underrated. The positive of using <700RPM is that your bullets will actually be accurate enough to land. 6 BTK isn't that bad at 60m with 600-700 RPM.

Ballistics are fine because Battlefield maps are not actually very large at all.

Demize99 once commented that a full-spec jet would fly across Caspian Border in about 2 seconds.

Everything is scaled down so the fighting space feels large. This goes from airspeed to muzzle velocity and weapon accuracy.

Using real world specs, precision weapons would not be necessary because your average rifle would be precise enough for your likely engagement scenarios and it'd maintain volume fire.



Nowhere did I say that 17m was interesting and good for gameplay.

In fact, I specifically said that real world ballistics would not be interesting or provide interesting choices. The end result of real world specs would be airpower > all. If by some misfortune you end up groundpounding, your ordinary AR would have sufficient accuracy to cover all the ranges you'd ever really need to fight in. That pretty much removes DMRs and BAs. You can probably throw out PDWs, Shotguns, and Carbines due to the ARs having sufficient fighting power in CQB while maintaining great accuracy at long range. LMGs would be a good contender solely because of the huge magazine. That's right, their weight actually should make them have even less recoil and they get to pack more ammo. Might as well throw ARs out as well.

But that's just looking at bullets. In fact, I'm pretty sure people would just end up using explosives because they don't need to do direct impacts to inflict damage.



I also do not see the need to reward people with OHK headshots with every weapon. Getting headshots is actually quite easy when you use optics besides the red dots.

With the BAs, at least there is a significant time before the next shot.

An AR having OHK headshotting ability and firing >600RPM? With 30+1 rounds?

All it takes is for them to spray at your head and for one projectile to land. Given real world ballistics, that would not be too hard. Recoil and spread are exaggerated compared to how they really handle.

This is actually one of my problems with HC mode. It really is just spray to win.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

This post has been edited 3 times, last edit by "NoctyrneSAGA" (Sep 12th 2015, 6:58am)


Posts: 3,643

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

5

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 6:58am

So, why does this matter to players? Well, since they have designed every weapon to be about as effective as a super soaker beyond 60m (less than that depending on how much cover there is) that means that you basically may as well not bother shooting anyone if you aren't right on top of them. No, I'm not talking about camping or sniping. I'm just talking about that you are on a point, you can see them at the next point, but you might as well not even take a shot because you will have to hit them several times just to kill them. But, what is most likely going to happen is that you will shoot them once, it will have no practical effect (because even if it was a headshot it won't kill them), and they will run behind cover and the assault guy on their squad will throw down a heal. Result? You, less bullets and you have given away your position. Them, absolutely nothing happened and now they know where you are.

So, the game basically boils down to wait until you are 40m or less (or whatever distance that allows you to pump 4-6 shots into them in one or two bursts) and then kill one person and probably get killed because you are right in front of the enemy. When guns have such pathetic damage you can't do anything but sprint into short-range and then spray until you are empty. In reality you are more likely to use cover and shoot from a distance (because a real gun is actually a threat beyond close range) and methodically move up the field and cover people that are further ahead than you. But, you can't cover anyone unless you are standing right next to them because the damage is either too low or drops off too quickly.


I definitely agree with this part, ranged damage is absolutely pathetic. Players already have to account for, more and more the further you get, spread, spread increase, recoil, velocity, gravity, target size, player movement, etc.

That's all good, but damage reduction on top of that is just awful, rather like both damage drop and spread together on Shotguns; bonus points for the less damage affecting a weapon more the lower its RoF is, due to exponentially longer relative TTKs.
Who Enjoys, Wins

Forger21

for all your voodoo needs

(512)

Posts: 195

Date of registration
: Jul 2nd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 10

  • Send private message

6

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 8:28am

I get what you're saying, but this is a case of the game intentionally sacrificing realism in exchange for authenticity.


How do you figure the ballistics are fine for battlefield map sizes? The maps are huge. There is no reason that you can't have realistic weapon characteristics. In COD you might have a point, but the maps in battlefield are pretty much realistic sizes.


The maps are large for an fps, but, two things to keep in mind:

1. They're small for 21st century, conventional, combined arms warfare between countries armed with Main Battle Tanks, modern aircraft, etc. The setting of BF4 is that of the present day militaries of China, Russia, and the USA going at it in a conventional war. The effective ranges of everything have been shrunk down to fit on these BF4 maps, not just rifle caliber bullets. In this case, we're sacrificing the "realism" of rifle caliber bullets having correct-to-IRL effective ranges in exchange for the "authenticity" of having a battlefield that has automatic weapons, main battle tanks, jets, bolt action sniper rifles, helicopters, all contributing and interacting to create the feel of being on a real combined arms battlefield.

2. Even if the maps are larger than other shooters like COD, the amount of cover on many of the relevant parts of the maps, especially on more infantry focused BF4 maps or on the flag zones of more vehicle focused BF4 maps, results in short engagement distances, just like IRL urban or jungle warfare. Merely changing the effective range of certain guns isn't going to have much effect on the average engagement range, which is far more dependent on the design of the maps. Increasing effective ranges would further marginalize long range weapons however, even more so then they are now. As it stands, bolt action rifles, and to a lesser extent DMRs and low RPM automatic weapons, are very rarely seen in competitive play even in the conquest game mode (even in 32 v 32 conquest large matches); they're just too niche and specialized given the design of the maps. Increasing effective ranges of weapons while keeping the same maps would further shrink that niche.
2143

  • "iMagUdspEllr" started this thread

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Sep 12th 2015

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

7

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 9:11am

Enemies normally move when you shoot at them. Shooting one shot at a time or doing short bursts enables you to hit... with some of the shots, but certainly not with enough shots to kill them before they find cover (depending on the map of course). I don't think you have looked at the spread charts and compared them to the 1.85m tall figure. You're lucky if you can get two shots to hit at a time with one weapon beyond 50m (see attachment). Yes, that is with a "low RPM weapon."

The map size in no way should affect the ballistics of weapons. The maximum flight speed of the jets has been restricted because players would fly across the map too quickly for it to make sense. They would have to make the map larger to accommodate an accurate top speed. However, jets in real life can fly slow enough to land. But, the important thing here is that there is a reason the top speed of the jets were restricted. You have not given a reason for the ballistics of the weapons to be restricted. Weapons can be used exactly as they are in real life inside a house or in an open field. All you are trying to argue is that because the top speed of a jet has been restricted everything else should be. Well, the top speed of the tank hasn't been restricted. The top speed of other vehicles haven't been restricted. So, I am getting the impression that you are the resident troll and you should probably start making arguments instead of trolling. You're really making this forum look bad.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

Using real world specs, precision weapons would not be necessary because your average rifle would be precise enough for your likely engagement scenarios and it'd maintain volume fire.

I'm not even sure this is a sentence that makes any sense in any way. I wasn't talking about "precision weapons." Your average rifle, in real life, is precise enough for the distances that you are likely to engage enemies. But, the weapons in BF are far, far less accurate than your average rifle in real life. So, good job on not being relevant again.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

In fact, I specifically said that real world ballistics would not be interesting or provide interesting choices. The end result of real world specs would be airpower > all.



So, how would realistic ballistics not be interesting and how are the current ballistics interesting? Do you mind actually supporting your arguments? I shouldn't have to ask you to make your own argument. In real life airpower is the most powerful thing. And, it is exactly like that in the game. Aircraft dominate everything. If jets had bombs it would be even worse. The only reason why they don't get involved in the ground fighting as much as they should is because they are usually busy fighting each other. However, helicopters very commonly give all ground forces hell. This is just one of the many ways that I know you are trolling. This forum needs scrubbed of trolls really bad if you have been allowed to make so many posts.


Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

If by some misfortune you end up groundpounding, your ordinary AR would have sufficient accuracy to cover all the ranges you'd ever really need to fight in. That pretty much removes DMRs and BAs.



Incorrect. DMRs and BAs would be proportionately deadlier and more accurate at long range. They would serve the same purpose and they would actually be used more often (to a point). Even with the game as it is now people hardly use them except to try to pad their k/d ratio. They don't have much of an effect on the fighting as it is. Why? Because nobody is bothering to use cover. Why? Because you have to get up close to kill anyone anyway so you have to be either sprinting to the action or you have to be frantically strafing in the action avoid dying. DMRs and Sniper rifles are useful in real life because people usually like to use cover because they might get shot and killed from 100m away. So, when they take that moment to sit still a rifle with more power and precision has the opportunity to pick them off. But, that never happens in the game because 100% of the people actually trying to take points are always sprinting to the next point or dancing around trying not to get shot in their 40m duels to the death. DMRs and BAs are already pointless because there is nobody taking cover.

PDWs are horrible in real life anyway. There is a reason why nobody uses them unless they have a specific need for extra-compact weapons (but we have 10" barrel rifles, too... so yes... pretty pointless). An M4(carbine) is just as accurate as an M16(Assault Rifle). The only difference is that the latter has a higher muzzle velocity so it can potentially do more damage at close range and the bullet will fly further before it hits the ground. The point of a carbine is to be quicker to shoulder and maneuver, which is great for close quarters. PDWs just take this to the extreme and they usually use extremely weak calibers so they are pointless when you can just use a short-barreled rifle.

I'm glad you brought up shotguns. Shotguns actually have a far tighter pattern in real life and they are actually very deadly even out to 40m depending on the choke. Depending on the barrel length and choke you can adjust the pattern for your needs. But, again, the geniuses that made BF are as ignorant of ballistics as you are so they basically just pretend that shotguns always spray a gigantic pattern and the pellets turn into marshmellows after 20m. Shooting a 12g 00 buckshot shell is like shooting nine 9mm bullets at the same time. You see, if they made shotguns work properly they would dominate due to how terrible the ballistics are for the rifles as they are now. So, they just make shotguns suck into oblivion and they are hardly used because of it. In reality people who were really aggressive and liked close range fighting would actually have a reason to use a shotgun if things were made the way I suggest.

Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

LMGs would be a good contender solely because of the huge magazine. That's right, their weight actually should make them have even less recoil and they get to pack more ammo. Might as well throw ARs out as well.



LMGs are heavy. That makes them slow to shoulder and maneuver. So they would get destroyed by people with shotguns or ARs. The purpose of an LMG is to lay down covering fire. But, since everyone is always sprinting into 40m distance they would have to shoot through their comrades just to hit the enemy team. Oh, and they would be the only person sitting still so snipers would just kill them. LMGs would be balanced out by those with DMRs and sniper rifles. ARs would be accurate enough and do enough damage to put the hurt on DMR users and snipers if they let them get too close (which is completely doable with cover.) It would actually be balanced instead of everyone never using shotguns, sniper rifles, DMRs, or PDWs like we have now.


Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

But that's just looking at bullets. In fact, I'm pretty sure people would just end up using explosives because they don't need to do direct impacts to inflict damage.



Ah, the trolling intensifies. Bullets are far more accurate, have a shorter flight time, and have a longer range than most explosives. If you take the time to shoot an RPG you could be killed three times before your rocket even lands. Please elaborate on how people would just give up using guns and switch to slow, short-ranged explosives. In fact as the game is now many people who are jerks just shoot RPGs at people over and over because guns suck so bad at a distance. They wouldn't be able to get away with that if my shots were accurate and dangerous enough to keep them pinned (or dead).


Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

I also do not see the need to reward people with OHK headshots with every weapon. Getting headshots is actually quite easy when you use optics besides the red dots.

Head shots are easy to get but I quite effectively explained why there is no point to even bother with a head shot as the game is now. It is far easier to land four shots anywhere on the body than it is to land two or three shots on something one eighth the size of the body. But, you went ahead and made me explain that again because you are a troll. Seriously, mods? Should I block him? Should I issue him a warning? What is the proper course to take considering he isn't even bothering to acknowledge what I have already stated.


Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

An AR having OHK headshotting ability and firing >600RPM? With 30+1 rounds?


All it takes is for them to spray at your head and for one projectile to land. Given real world ballistics, that would not be too hard. Recoil and spread are exaggerated compared to how they really handle.



If you ever tried doing that in real life or in the game as it is now you would realize that your first shot might hit and the rest of them would fly all over the place. That is unless of course you are 17m away... in which case it is perfectly reasonable for a large volley of shots to hit your chest and/or head. In that case you would be dead whether it was due to the headshot or due to the 10 bullets that just tore through your body in a second. So, it actually wouldn't impact close combat at all. The OHK headshots would punish people who sat still long enough to let someone draw a bead on their head for long enough to hit it in one shot. It is camper punishment. I don't know why someone wouldn't be for that. But, as it is now you're safe. Your head has to be shot twice in hardcore or three times in core just for you to die. And, as I have already explained (third time now!) it is far easier to just unload into your chest.


Quoted from "NoctyrneSAGA"

This is actually one of my problems with HC mode. It really is just spray to win.



It is spray to win in every mode as I had explained in detail in my first post. You don't have a choice but to spray between 4 and 6 bullets to kill people because that is the only practical way to do it. You are either spraying six bullets into their body or you are spraying four. There is no difference except for the fraction of a second difference it takes for a barrel to pump out two more bullets. People like you like core because you can take two more bullets on the way to cover, heal, and then turn around and kill the person that should have killed you because you were too stupid to look behind you.


Anyway, I should probably just block you or something since you seem to be intellectually dishonest and have no intention on having an actual discussion. But, I'll wait. I would rather you actually get in trouble for the nonsense you are typing.
iMagUdspEllr has attached the following image:
  • AK12.png

Posts: 3,643

Date of registration
: Mar 19th 2014

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

8

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 9:18am

You'll... get used to him.

Guns are given shorter range in terms of ballistics to match the maps being smaller; if maps have, say, 30% shorter average sightlines and engagement distances compared to average real ones, velocity and accuracy will then have to be 30% worse than reality, as the goal is to make it feel the same.
Who Enjoys, Wins

  • "iMagUdspEllr" started this thread

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Sep 12th 2015

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

9

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 9:39am

@BleedingUranium: Thank you for your reply. I don't agree with artificially changing rates of fire depending upon the amount of damage the weapon does. Guns are how they are and depending on what role you want to play or what capabilities you would like to have, you choose the appropriate weapon. There is no reason to fudge the characteristics of every weapon just to try to artificially make them perform "the same" overall. I have noticed people talk about this before. It seems like everyone wants to just be able to use their favorite gun and do no better or worse than anyone else. That makes sense. But, why not just have different skins instead of fudging all the weapons into a mess of equally ineffective weapons?

@Forger21:
I fail to understand what "authenticity" is supposed to mean in this context. I assume that having weapons behave authentically would be the more "authentic" route to take. Sorry, I just am failing to understand what you mean.

The maps are huge. When a SWAT team clears a tiny house in the ghetto there is no need for anything to be "nerfed" or tweaked. I fail to understand how the space on the map should have anything to do with the performance of the weapons. Okay, let's say we had a 10' by 10' room for the entire map. Well, everyone would probably use shotguns, or a grenade. Now, lets say we have a 20 mile by 20 mile map. Well, everyone could use any weapon they would want to use. No, not everyone would use sniper rifles. Cover exists and people can't see in every direction at once. The people with the assault rifles would probably still dominate because sniper rifles are terrible when you are on the move trying to capture points. Shotguns would even see use inside buildings. But, shotguns are never used because, like everything else, they have been nerfed into oblivion. The ARs are about the only thing that still somewhat do their job.

You don't have to nerf guns to fit the map size. The map size and terrain determines which weapons will be present and in which quantities. Each type of weapon was made to fill a role, usually determined by the average distance you plan on fighting. If you try to force people to use certain weapons more than others you basically just destroy the balance of all of the weapons as you can see in the BF games where everyone would use ARs if it weren't for the fact that sometimes you need C4, rockets, or repair tools.

I have no idea why you think that having realistic ballistics would destroy the "combined arms feel". It wouldn't at all as I see it. I would like you to explain how it would affect it in any way.

Yes, cover and terrain affects engagement distances. But, explain to me why a weapon has to do less damage, not be as accurate, or not reach as far just because sometimes the terrain forces close-range fighting. You see, that would encourage more shotguns to be used, but because shotguns are nerfed into oblivion everyone sticks with ARs or Carbines. You're afraid of sniper rifles and DMRs becoming even more marginalized but you don't bother to see how crazy it is for shotguns to be so unpopular even though the average engagement distance is 17m? Also, I'm not sure if you read my response to NoctyrneSAGA or not. I'll spare you. I explained that the reason why DMRs and sniper rifles aren't used is because nobody takes cover. Everyone is forced to sprint from point to point because the ballistics of their weapons is too poor to have any engagements at even a moderate distance. If everyone is moving full speed all the time in frantic, close-range fire fights then there is no way to take a shot. A bolt action is useless at close range against fast moving targets and it is useless at long range if you can't draw a bead on the target long enough to score a hit (which would have to be a headshot if you didn't want them to hide and heal, thus negating the fact that you even shot them in the first place).

I don't mean to be rude because you and BleedingUranium are the only ones that have been polite and have responded without trolling. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your honest discussion. However, I don't think you understand why some guns are or aren't used. BAs and DMRs will be used more often if people are given ARs and Carbines that can score kills at somewhat of a distance. Why? Because the AR and Carbine users now have a reason to stop behind a rock and line up careful shots at a distance. If they do that and they don't notice the sniper then they will eat one in the face no problem. But, that will never happen if you have no reason to line up a careful shot at a moderate distance (because your weapon sucks too much at that distance and Medkits negate any hits that you do score at that distance).

  • "iMagUdspEllr" started this thread

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Sep 12th 2015

Platform: PC

Reputation modifier: 1

  • Send private message

10

Saturday, September 12th 2015, 9:51am

@BleedingUranium:

I already explained this to Forger21. But, there is no reason to change the ballistics of guns if the size of the map changes. Different guns will be used in different percentages based upon the size of the map and the type of terrain in the map. Some maps should be dominate by shotguns. Some should be dominated by ARs and carbines. Even in big maps sniper rifles shouldn't dominate because you can't snipe and cap points. DMRs and sniper rifles are, by design not meant for that purpose at all. However, in bigger maps BAs and DMRs serve an important role of providing accurate and deadly covering fire. But, if everyone is sprinting around and your own team mates are always mashed right up against the enemy then BAs basically can never take a good shot and DMRs are okay but since you can't kill people as quickly you can't help win the 40m engagement.

Believe it or not, but, if the weapons performed the same as they did in real life there would be no balance issues. You would just see mostly shotguns in cluttered maps, ARs and Carbines in moderately open maps, and you would see some USEFUL snipers and DMR users pop up in more open maps (as opposed to meaningless, non-contributing snipers that you see now). There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and I am baffled as to why anyone wants to avoid that. I fail to see why it needs to be engineered how it is now. The current stats seem to make it so everyone only uses ARs or Carbines if they want to contribute to the win.