Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 42 Location: Puerto Rico
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #121 on Jul 22, 2012, 11:56pm »
Actually, in my suggestions, only the CM901 would be a 2hit kill to the chest (46*1.1 = 50.6) and it would still be a 4-hit kill at long range (30*1.1 = 33). The AK-47 would not be a 2-hit kill to the chest (45*1.1 = 49.5), but would be able to stay a 3-hit kill at long range (33*1.1 = 36.3).
I threw the multiplier suggestion out there because I could have sworn I saw a post somewhere on the internet about IW considering buffing the CM901 with it.
There is nothing wrong with the MK14 and it does not need to be rebalanced.
You're right, it doesn't need rebalanced, it just needs the one shot headshot taken away. Just reduce the multiplier to 1.3 so it doesn't mess with the range at all.
Not only does it allow for lucky kills and make it (even more) overpowered with a modded controller, but it makes the Dragunov and to some extent the RSASS obsolete since it can one shot to the head WHEN SILENCED and they can't.
Joined: Nov 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 1,651 Location: Europe
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #123 on Jul 23, 2012, 3:08am »
SVD and RSASS are sniper rifles, 2HK alternatives to 1HK Barrrett, MSR, etc. not to MK14. MK14 = assault. 1HK headshot works in close-mid range only.
If you use semi auto AR you have to aim at HEAD, always. Especially if you face 2 enemies, you need 2 x headshot badly, or at least 1 headshot. That’s the challenge, I see no reason to change that just because there are 2 crap weapons somewhere (RSASS, SVD) that noone seriously uses…
I do not suppose that anyone considers: RSASS or MK14 while creating a custom class. He might think: MK14 or Type95 … I consider RSASS or SVD rebuilding my sniper class only.
I’d rather buff SVD and RSASS to 1HK headshot when silenced …. But then we might have some balance issues vs Barrett and vs other weapons etc …
-----
TL;DR; Do not change MK14. Ability to 1HK headshot needed in close-mid if multiple enemies.
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #125 on Jul 23, 2012, 3:44am »
We're drifting slightly off-topic don't you think? IW won't make any changes to the MK14 anyway, I've decided
@Lexapro: Sorry if I'm talking to the wrong person, but are you in charge of the weapons spreadsheet? If so, would you mind posting the latest, updated version? I'm interested to see how it's looking now ^ If this is irrelevant to you, just ignore me
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #126 on Jul 23, 2012, 3:57am »
My two cents:
G36C: Give it a 1.5 HS multiplier (It is the only AR which doesn't get one less BTK from headshot) ACR 6.8: Lower rate of fire; Lower min Damage to 25 FAD: 0,25 ADS time with attachments as well; Reduce hip spread to values inbetween AR and SMG; Raise minimum damage to 25. M16A4: Switch recoil values with Type 95. But in all honesty I can't find a niche for this weapon which is not filled by another, better, gun.
CM901 needs some buffing but I have too little experience with the gun to suggest any.
G36C: Give it a 1.5 HS multiplier (It is the only AR which doesn't get one less BTK from headshot) ACR 6.8: Lower rate of fire; Lower min Damage to 25 FAD: 0,25 ADS time with attachments as well; Reduce hip spread to values inbetween AR and SMG; Raise minimum damage to 25. M16A4: Switch recoil values with Type 95. But in all honesty I can't find a niche for this weapon which is not filled by another, better, gun.
CM901 needs some buffing but I have too little experience with the gun to suggest any.
And yea, leave MK14 as it is.
- No changes to G36. Period. - Our 'new' ACR already has higher viewkick, but I agree with lowering the ROF and min damage to 25 too. - FAD just needs those AR/SMG hybrid values. I like the FAD as it is, so just those values should be enough. No need to adjust damage IMO. - Hate to sound cocky, but I think my M16 adjustments are probably the best: http://denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi....82&page=2#90163 - CM901 just needs less recoil and longer 3HK's compared to most other AR's due it's slower ROF.
Joined: Dec 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 722 Location: Australia
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #128 on Jul 23, 2012, 5:02am »
Mk14 definitely does not need the 1 shot headshot removed, play a match firing the Mk14 only at peoples stomachs, then play one only getting headshots, take a guess as to which one you'll do better in
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #129 on Jul 23, 2012, 5:03am »
CM901: 30 min damage, 800-2000 range (from 1900). 3hk up to 1770u. Still fairly inaccurate, but anyone good enough to handle the recoil will be very compensated at long ranges. Still sucks at close though.
M16: 925rpm from previous games has shown to be a good rof. Increase min. damage to 30. The small decrease in centerspeed won't allow it to be op, but fairly competitive.
FAD: Correct all values to in-between SMG ones.
You guys are taking way too hard on the ACR. There is nothing wrong with weak, accurate weapons. Reduce its range to hell plus a low max damage will make it much less competitive at mid ranges, in trade for more accuracy at longer. In MW2, it was even more accurate, so it had less damage. A significant less range in MW3 is just what it needs, since it is much more inaccurate than in MW2.
I never did specify any amount of gunkick. Something like the MP5's gunkick is what I was thinking. You won't really know it's there unless someone tells you it is.
Because gunkick on the MP5 is so low it has no effect on accuracy. It's the same as in CoD4.
CM901: 30 min damage, 800-2000 range (from 1900). 3hk up to 1770u. Still fairly inaccurate, but anyone good enough to handle the recoil will be very compensated at long ranges. Still sucks at close though.
M16: 925rpm from previous games has shown to be a good rof. Increase min. damage to 30. The small decrease in centerspeed won't allow it to be op, but fairly competitive.
FAD: Correct all values to in-between SMG ones.
- CM901 idea seems fine to me - but I'm not an expert with ranges so I'll stay away from that for now. - I get why you want the 900+ ROF on the M16 but it would be too close to the Type 95. Ideally the M16's ROF should be under ~870 to keep both burst rifles either side of the 925/937.5 ROF in previous games. Plus, ~850 seems alright with me - maybe we could use a video to show what it would be like? (Hint hint) - FAD just needs those darn AR/SMG values! - ACR should be alright with increased vertical kick and reduced range/lower 3-4HK damage values.
Who's in charge of the weapons spreadsheet? It seems there's some updating that needs to be done
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #132 on Jul 23, 2012, 5:21am »
ACR horizontal recoil is bad enough, it doesn't need any more vertical. Look it up yourself. A increase in ACR recoil makes the M4A1 much better (which is in fact much more accurate)
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #133 on Jul 23, 2012, 5:26am »
I think we're getting nowhere. Someone just send them a link to this thread, so they can get some ideas if they want. We will never come to an agreement here ("SMG Balance Discussion" already has 11 pages).
[quote author=mmacola board=general thread=4782 post=90419 time=1343037832]- I get why you want the 900+ ROF on the M16 but it would be too close to the Type 95. Ideally the M16's ROF should be under ~870 to keep both burst rifles either side of the 925/937.5 ROF in previous games. Plus, ~850 seems alright with me - maybe we could use a video to show what it would be like? (Hint hint)
Rendering video now. And IF they nerf the Type-95 the way I want, it will still be incredibly reliable, with excellent 3hk range: 1300. That is with a insane 1000rpm (1250 rapid fire). I propose the same range, 42-24 damage. Headshot wise, it is as effective as the M16A4 and the big firerate is much more suited for an aggressive playstyle, where the M16 will not be as good. Even more against multiple enemies.
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #136 on Jul 23, 2012, 5:59am »
Like you said, with these changes the Type will be the burst rifle for aggressive play and the M16 will be the burst rifle for defensive play. Assuming the ~850 RPM M16 goes to plan, I'll be happy with these changes if you are
Like you said, with these changes the Type will be the burst rifle for aggressive play and the M16 will be the burst rifle for defensive play. Assuming the ~850 RPM M16 goes to plan, I'll be happy with these changes if you are
Ok the video shows the recoil pattern of the range at which it should kill in three bullets if all of them make contact:
Like you said, with these changes the Type will be the burst rifle for aggressive play and the M16 will be the burst rifle for defensive play. Assuming the ~850 RPM M16 goes to plan, I'll be happy with these changes if you are
Ok the video shows the recoil pattern of the range at which it should kill in three bullets if all of them make contact:
HD + Full Screen to see better
I think at 850 RPM the M16 would be fine. Maybe with a bit less horizontal recoil, but that's right at the edge of the 3HK range and you'll be firing off a second burst whether the first kills or not anyway. Plus at closer ranges that recoil seems as if it would be alright for 1 burst potential. What do you think, mma?
Re: AR Balance Discussion « Reply #140 on Jul 23, 2012, 6:34am »
Good enough. I would definitely settle with a 850rpm, there is rapid fire anyway. 925 rpm would just suit me better because I would be able to use RDS + Focus, while basically anything lower than that I must use RDS + Rapid Fire. But anyway, I know some people find the Iron Sights very enjoyable and would still do good with it.
We're drifting slightly off-topic don't you think? IW won't make any changes to the MK14 anyway, I've decided
@Lexapro: Sorry if I'm talking to the wrong person, but are you in charge of the weapons spreadsheet? If so, would you mind posting the latest, updated version? I'm interested to see how it's looking now ^ If this is irrelevant to you, just ignore me
I made this spreadsheet and it's constantly updated if I see a suggestion I think is good. Right now, it primarily reflects my preferences and ideas, which I'd be happy to change if the community reaches consensus on an alternative. I recently changed M16 to 45-30, brought HS multiplier back down to 1.4 and increased ROF to 850. It now has the longest 3HK range of any AR (excluding MK14) and has the highest ROF of any 3/4 HK weapon (in burst only, of course). So, it's more consistent and deadly at range - if you don't miss your first burst, you can be very good with it.
I don't think the MK14 headshot should be removed. If anything, the RSASS and Dragunov should both have 2.0 Headshot multipliers so that they OHK to the head even when silenced. The MK14 can only 1HK out to ~1000u, and even less than that when silenced.
FAD is mostly fine. I think making sure it can ADS in .25s with attachments is a good fix. I also increased range so that it can 4HK more consistently.
I'd like to maintain the Type 95's role as the close range burst rifle. To me, that means keeping the up close 2HK which is one of the defining characteristics of the gun. The issue I think the Type has was it's 2HK and 3HK range was way too long, making the M16 obsolete. Reducing range makes it just as powerful up close, but significantly worse at range, allowing the new buffed M16 to take over.
I recently changed M16 to 45-30, brought HS multiplier back down to 1.4 and increased ROF to 850. It now has the longest 3HK range of any AR (excluding MK14) and has the highest ROF of any 3/4 HK weapon (in burst only, of course). So, it's more consistent and deadly at range - if you don't miss your first burst, you can be very good with it.
Good, good. M16 now rewards accuracy and offers more than just 'long range support'. It can actually be used for offensive play at ranges most full auto AR's will struggle at (as it should be).
I don't think the MK14 headshot should be removed. If anything, the RSASS and Dragunov should both have 2.0 Headshot multipliers so that they OHK to the head even when silenced. The MK14 can only 1HK out to ~1000u, and even less than that when silenced.
I don't mind whether the MK can kill in 1 head shot or not - either is good with me.
FAD is mostly fine. I think making sure it can ADS in .25s with attachments is a good fix. I also increased range so that it can 4HK more consistently.
Like I've said a billion times, as long as the handling values are between AR's and SMG's then I'm good. I can use it as it is now anyway, so a longer 4 HK should be nice.
I'd like to maintain the Type 95's role as the close range burst rifle. To me, that means keeping the up close 2HK which is one of the defining characteristics of the gun. The issue I think the Type has was it's 2HK and 3HK range was way too long, making the M16 obsolete. Reducing range makes it just as powerful up close, but significantly worse at range, allowing the new buffed M16 to take over.
Now that the M16 is actually worth using at range, I don't mind the Type's 2HK range so much. Lowering it is still good and it's fairly obvious that it's 3HK range should have been worse than the M16's this whole time. Nice one!
Mk14 definitely does not need the 1 shot headshot removed, play a match firing the Mk14 only at peoples stomachs, then play one only getting headshots, take a guess as to which one you'll do better in
If you as a person is ok with Type 2hk at close range, you must have never used a shotgun against it. No fraking reaction time.
I still don't agree with the Type being a 2HK, but I can deal with it and it doesn't enrage me when I play. Plus it allows us to make progress with everything else in the game now that the AR's are pretty much done with.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/coRNc.png "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i47.tinypic.com/k30v7m.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://z2.ifrm.com/10720/101/0/a3103197/avatar-3103197.gif "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://www.donnamoderna.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/attualita/news/foto-francesca/rocco-siffredi/69289943-1-ita-IT/Rocco-Siffredi_o_cgo2.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://gifguppy.com/css/images/movies/thor/tableflip.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://sprites.pokecheck.org/i/625.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i45.tinypic.com/2434tbq.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://imageshack.us/a/img17/7360/90615208.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.abload.de/img/hitgirl200p4dznx.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/yF3AUEB.png "[avatar]")
