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

Posts: 360

Date of registration
: Nov 8th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Newport Beach, CA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

21

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 2:49am

If we have to compare weapons than we have to at least do so on an equal basis.

I had a round yesterday where I went 81-15 or something with the G36, which is surely not the best weapon in the carbine portfolio. It might be totally different in the next round though. Even if I could pull it off for the whole 510 kills, and putting personal preference aside, I would know that almost every carbine would be better just by judging from the stats.

Now when I pick up the PP-2000 and can do all that stuff again I will still know that the M-Tar would likely yield better results all around.


I don't think it's a fair to assume if someone does good with a low ROF weapon they would do even better with a higher ROF weapon with a similar damage model. Ease of use and accuracy need to be considered.

If someone prefers and has success with the G36 they would probably transition better to the PP-2000 than MTAR. The PP-2000 has the same ROF, similar (and better) recoil, and more ammo. The MTAR's recoil and significantly higher ROF makes it a lot more difficult (compared to those other weapons) at longer ranges. The ROF advantage in CQ is great on paper, but not the 'be all end all variable' in practice (consider what I said in my previous post). The high ROF also makes ammo management more difficult. You're more likely to over use ammo and thus more likely to get caught with an empty/low mag in a critical situation. The ammo/reload management advantage of slower ROF weapons is underrated, and the larger mag of the PP-2000 gives it another bonus in that area. Weapons with lower TTK and higher accuracy and ease-of-use definitely have their place in this game IMO.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,320)

Posts: 7,285

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

22

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 3:04am

I don't think it's a fair to assume if someone does good with a low ROF weapon they would do even better with a higher ROF weapon with a similar damage model. Ease of use and accuracy need to be considered.


Exactly. I used to use High ROF weapons because of the low TTK, but my playstyle has transitioned towards a more calculated style like a proper marksman. I feel comfortable using low ROF weapons, not that I have a problem with high ROF ones. It's just that I feel like I'm wasting ammunition when I use them.
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™.

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Location: Philly

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

23

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 3:22am

I really think the biggest problem with PDW is that they are a class specific gun with few real benefits over other carbines that can be substituted in while also being available for all classes. Every class specific weapon has a reason to use it over carbines in general, though not always. LMG for support, AR for medic//infantry, sniper for recon, and..... pdw for engi.

It simply doesn't have enough benefits over the diverse capabilities of carbines for it to be used regularly. Considering the engi's primary use is to assist and eliminate vehicles, which is an ability most suited to larger conquest style maps where CQB weapons are less well suited, players just choose a carbine they know and love instead of a pdw.

So essentially, like other class specific guns, give the PDW a boost to make them a viable class gun; I'd say a good increase in hipfire accuracy OR make the aim down sight time faster than other guns. Honestly, a good split where half the PDW had the ADS speed increase and the other half had the hip fire accuracy benefit would be my dream. It's pretty simple, it allows for flexible weapons and load-outs and even gives the varied attachments more utility. Just a fantasy maybe but I think it could help make the guns more viable and widely used.

Posts: 360

Date of registration
: Nov 8th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Newport Beach, CA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

24

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 4:17am

@Nikodiemus

Your statement about Engineers in Conquest made me think about class balance. Maybe PDW's aren't the problem. Maybe Carbines are. The Engineer class excels in the short-to-long range anti-vehicle role. Why should it also have good anti-infantry capabilities at longer ranges via Carbines? One class shouldn't have that much power.

I think there would be better class balance if there were no Carbines. DMR's and Shotguns as all-kit weapons could be sufficient enough.

Posts: 630

Date of registration
: Jan 27th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 5

  • Send private message

25

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 7:40am


@revic_crew
@Quercus
ROF for CQ situations is overrated. I use slow and fast firing weapons and don't feel a substantial difference in the 'win rates' of CQ encounters. A faster ROF weapon will not make up for getting shot at first by a decent skilled player using a slower ROF weapon, and it sure as hell doesn't make up for being on the bad end of the 'lag' - in that regard even a FAMAS won't save you against a SAR-21 user who knows what he is doing.

How many times do you find yourself getting bailed out of an "oh shit" cq situation because you have a high ROF vs low ROF? I know for me high ROF makes a huge difference. Of course a great player with a SAR21 will beat a crap player with a CZ3A1 up close. Take two theoretical players of equal skill, they see each other and shoot at the same time with the same accuracy, higher ROF will win. And because of the current state of the game they die instantly anyway, so why would you want to take the chance with a low ROF weapon?
And that's why low ROF PDWs need an advantage, they have good hip fire but it isn't good enough, hence the solution being to improve it even more and reduce the hip spread increase (the P90 has the lowest base hip spread in the game, yet it's still rubbish at hip firing and gets beat out by an MX4)

Posts: 360

Date of registration
: Nov 8th 2013

Platform: Xbox One

Location: Newport Beach, CA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 3

  • Send private message

26

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 8:45am

How many times do you find yourself getting bailed out of an "oh shit" cq situation because you have a high ROF vs low ROF?


Not enough for me. I don't doubt that I'd win more CQ face to face encounters with an AEK or FAMAS than I would with a SAR-21 or AK-12, but it won't be enough to offset the difference in more medium to long range kills with the lower ROF weapons. Those 'oh shit' CQ face to face encounters are the ones I want to reduce as much as possible because those are the ones that latency has the greatest effect on - it's easier to bridge a latency gap against lesser skilled players in medium to long range than it is in close range.


Take two theoretical players of equal skill, they see each other and shoot at the same time with the same accuracy, higher ROF will win


This won't happen, because we play over the internet. If it does, the guy with the higher ROF weapon will win the majority of face to face CQ encounters while the guy with the lower ROF weapon will likely win most of the medium to long range encounters. Skilled players use cover a lot, that puts the guy using the high ROF weapon at a disadvantage because those weapons usually have significantly more recoil and spread than lower ROF weapons, so they aren't as easy to use against people head glitching.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,416)

Posts: 2,812

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

27

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 1:40pm

If we have to compare weapons than we have to at least do so on an equal basis.

I had a round yesterday where I went 81-15 or something with the G36, which is surely not the best weapon in the carbine portfolio. It might be totally different in the next round though. Even if I could pull it off for the whole 510 kills, and putting personal preference aside, I would know that almost every carbine would be better just by judging from the stats.

Now when I pick up the PP-2000 and can do all that stuff again I will still know that the M-Tar would likely yield better results all around.


I don't think it's a fair to assume if someone does good with a low ROF weapon they would do even better with a higher ROF weapon with a similar damage model. Ease of use and accuracy need to be considered.

If someone prefers and has success with the G36 they would probably transition better to the PP-2000 than MTAR. The PP-2000 has the same ROF, similar (and better) recoil, and more ammo. The MTAR's recoil and significantly higher ROF makes it a lot more difficult (compared to those other weapons) at longer ranges. The ROF advantage in CQ is great on paper, but not the 'be all end all variable' in practice (consider what I said in my previous post). The high ROF also makes ammo management more difficult. You're more likely to over use ammo and thus more likely to get caught with an empty/low mag in a critical situation. The ammo/reload management advantage of slower ROF weapons is underrated, and the larger mag of the PP-2000 gives it another bonus in that area. Weapons with lower TTK and higher accuracy and ease-of-use definitely have their place in this game IMO.


Yeah I did not quite think that through. It is true that I would likely get along with the PP-2000 just fine, though I do best with weapons with a ROF 800+ and with weapons -650. What I was getting at is that personal preference and performance (e.g. "skill") is to be taken aside at first and stats are to be looked at in comparison to the actual facts (i.e. gunfights) in BF4.
So with any PDW bar the PDW-R the clear focus is on CQB battles, with the best hipfire, mostly a high firerate, but high recoil and high spread increase and a lower damage model. On average that is. Now we have to maps with a clear focus on CQ, although with Metro it is still tricky as the lanes are long, and the other vanilla maps bar Zavod have a way higher average distance. With SA it works different certainly, I feel the distances are not necessarily shorter but you can use a lot of cover to get up close and are more rarely forced into gunfights that are outside of your most effective range.

So I also did a quick glance through my stats and while I have an a rather tight average damage model for ARs and Carbines, for PDWs it is totally screwed up. My average damage per hit lies between 18,9 with the MX4 to 11,8 with the JS2. So performance is truly screwed up with each PDW (BTW the low average damage with the JS2 likely comes from the many kill assists I farmed with it due to it's high spread increase and wobbly sights, my mates called me Mr. Kill Assist).

The next problem is obvious, too, Carbines are all-kit. While PDWs are a niche weapon class like Shotguns and DMRs, the Carbines are as versatile as ARs and, if broken down to it, LMGs. I do not understand the design choice in making Carbines all-kit in the first place. Though I did not necessarily like the Carbines in the Engi-kit, I would argue that they need to be class specific. Carbines offer too much a jack-of-all-trade weapon than to be usable by everyone.
So it is a whole bunch of things that are wrong with the PDWs and some problems are not even due to their stats but to outer influences like map design and weapon availability.

Posts: 36

Date of registration
: Feb 25th 2014

Platform: PC

Location: Philly

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 2

  • Send private message

28

Wednesday, March 19th 2014, 11:22pm

@ Stellar yea, I thought about bringing up the fact that since carbines are available to all that alone makes pdw less useful but I seriously doubt DICE will change the carbines availability - too many people like it and use it, myself included. I really like the simple solution for tighter HF grouping or faster ADS. I can't really think of anything else that would not be game breaking but would at least make them viable.

CobaltRose

I'll be there... around every corner... in every empty room...

(1,219)

Posts: 3,446

Date of registration
: Nov 8th 2013

Platform: PC

Location: Boston's Trashcan, USA

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 14

  • Send private message

29

Thursday, March 20th 2014, 2:03am

Really, I think the combo of lower overall spread increase and increased moving accuracy is a sound idea. Main reason for the second buff is that some of them (the MP7, SR-2 Veresk, PP2000 and CBJ-MS come to mind) are very compact weapons, to the point where they're pretty much machine pistols -- in fact, the MP in MP7 stands for Maschinenpistole, which is German for machine pistol (there is a difference between a machine pistol and an SMG, but that's the way that the Germans have been labeling SMG's since the weapon class was created). Seeing that pistols little to no difference between moving and stationary spread (bar the .44), it only makes sense that PDWs get the same benefit.

As for the lower spread increase, it makes sense, as the majority of them come with a small or rounded grip built into the weapon. They should have some benefit other than being a not-so-super-secret ERGO Grip behind the scenes.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Memorable Quotes

I once tried to burn a bridge, but due to the half-assed levolution implementation it kept standing up just fine.

Compared to the MTAR, the PDR has the TTK of your average pack of cigarettes.

The World Champion, on the Tactical Light:
"Oh don't mind me, I'm just out of ammo and I'll just POCKET SUN!!!!"

What can't be changed can be banned.

I'm completely serious. Well, seriously insane actually :P

If only more people left the wheel chair, adjustable hospital bed, and crutches behind and played HC. (aka Regen, Minimap, Killcam)

Natalia Poklonskaya:
Putin the cute in prosecute since 2014.

I can't look at my own avatar without having to pee. GG Me. GG.

I swear to god if you reply with a picture of the AEK I'll mail you a buttplug shaped like one.

The one time when "it's only three inches" is a good thing.

How do you guys control your FAMAS burst length since it fires its mag in just 1,5 seconds))
I consider each magazine a burst. :/

This is Symthic, we don't do "feels" around here ;)



DeathOfTheDodo

Veni, SMAW, Vici

(863)

Posts: 1,829

Date of registration
: Jun 30th 2013

Platform: PS4

Location: North of The Wall, Canada

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 11

  • Send private message

30

Saturday, March 22nd 2014, 1:04am

My only problem with the PDW category is the massive recoil on weapons that should have very little recoil. The 5.7x28mm has VERY little recoil, even when fired from a handgun. The P90 being jumpier than Muhammad Ali on six pots of coffee and a handfull of speed is what makes it relatively unused, not it's damage or accuracy. A lot of PDWs have the short end of the stick when it comes to ranged performance because of their damage models, why they should be handicapped further by have obscene levels of recoil only reproducible by handing a toddler a firearm is beyond me.

TL;DR PDWs already duck because of damage, give them less recoil to make them viable.
[SYM]Deathofthedodo
BE ADVISED BE ADVISED BE ADVISED BE ADVISED BE ADVISED BE ADVISED BE ADVISED

"AK Attachment Guide"

No.

Similar threads