mrite
True Bro
Posts: 239
|
Post by mrite on Jan 20, 2012 13:21:36 GMT -5
first of all, most will agree that BF3 is not the most balanced game in the world. However there are some balanced guns within the game that do not keep the same damage and simply increase the fire rate. In my point of view, the most balanced gun for assault in terms of balance to other classes is the M416, so how would you balance one assault gun around the M416 if the caliber/damage model would be abandoned?
|
|
|
Post by rubionubio on Jan 20, 2012 13:51:11 GMT -5
So, just to be clear, you're asking what we would do if we were to create a NEW gun that abandoned the current damage model, attempting to copy the M416 in terms of outcome? Or are we balancing this new gun against Carbines, LMGs, and DMRs? Or an existing gun against the M416 but we can use any damage we want? I'm just not sure what we're supposed to be doing
|
|
mrite
True Bro
Posts: 239
|
Post by mrite on Jan 20, 2012 15:22:01 GMT -5
hopefully, seeing how the game would be different if the m416 were to be used as the base for all the stats, but the current theme of the assault rifles would be the same: eg. the ak74 as a higher damage, but slower firing assault rifle, etc.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Jan 20, 2012 15:58:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't do much different. Just a few tweaks here and there. Makes it still kind of samey, but at least each weapon is slightly different. This is ignoring all the other stats too, I was just going for a quick, raw damage kind of approach.
G3: 34-20, 550rpm AK-74: 30-17, 650rpm L85: 25-17, 650rpm M416: 25-17, 750rpm M16A3/4: 25-15, 800rpm F2000: 22-17, 850rpm AEK: 22-15, 900rpm FAMAS: 20-15, 1000rpm
KH2002: 22-17, 800rpm AN-94: 20-17, 600/1200rpm
|
|
tiesieman
True Bro
mental lagger
Posts: 1,401
|
Post by tiesieman on Jan 20, 2012 16:37:58 GMT -5
I would keep damage based on rounds, but do something more to make weapons feel different from eachother. I'm basing these on an altered M16, so
Okay, so current AR stats: - falloff starts at 10ish metres, ends at 50 metres. - 1.0 moving spread, 0.2 base spread. 2.5 hipfire spread. - 0.1 spread added per shot.
M16 Since it's a long rifle, it has poor handling at close range. I'd give it slightly better hipfire than the LMGs. Moving affects accuracy more than other assault rifles (1.4 spread). It also has 0.15 base accuracy and a tiny bit more vertical recoil. 0.1 spread per shot. In short, it handles a bit like an lmg when you're strafing but it's actually better when you use it for ranged combat. Also has better falloff damage (ends at 70 instead of 50)
AK-74 The mid to long range AR. Has decent hipfire 2.2 (slighty better than current AR hipfire) and moving doesn't affect accuracy a lot (0.8 spread). Damage, recoil and base accuracy stay the same. 0.09 spread per shot added. Maybe even give it some better recoil recovery, but that might be a bit much
M416 Comparable to the AK-74, but slighty worse hipfire (2.4) and moving spread is worse (0.9 spread). The choice between the AK-74 is mainly the recoil, with the M416 being worse since it has higher rate of fire.
Maybe I'll do other weapons later.
|
|
|
Post by turdferguson on Jan 20, 2012 23:16:06 GMT -5
I had a thought that slightly decreasing the damage of the 5.56 mm across the board might do some good for balance (to 22 damage close-up, for example). It would be a simple fix, and quickly make some of the PDW's more viable. The major problem with this is that the slow ROF 5.56 mm weapons would instantly lose whatever shred of viability they still hold.
What AR and carbine balance will come down to (using the current bullet damage model) is buffing the slow ROF guns vs all the other guns or weakening the high ROF guns vs all the other guns. I guess that is pretty obvious, but it hasn't been explicitly pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Jan 21, 2012 12:36:29 GMT -5
I had a thought that slightly decreasing the damage of the 5.56 mm across the board might do some good for balance (to 22 damage close-up, for example). It would be a simple fix, and quickly make some of the PDW's more viable. The major problem with this is that the slow ROF 5.56 mm weapons would instantly lose whatever shred of viability they still hold. What AR and carbine balance will come down to (using the current bullet damage model) is buffing the slow ROF guns vs all the other guns or weakening the high ROF guns vs all the other guns. I guess that is pretty obvious, but it hasn't been explicitly pointed out. Don't take this the wrong way, but PDWs don't matter. They're not meant to be balanced versus other weapons. Their main purpose is to provide a close range automatic weapon to classes who may not otherwise have them. Unfortunately, that pretty much boils down to just Recon. If it wasn't for the M27/RPK/MG36/SAW (a lot of ifs, I know), then PDWs would be great for Supports too. Although if BF3 featured varying soldier run speeds based on primary weapon (or even just what weapon you have equipped), then PDWs would be great for slower classes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that damage isn't the real issue, it's the role that PDWs play in the game. If I was going to buff PDWs, I'd say they need some RoF tweaks. I don't know how fast their real life counterparts fire, but overall PDWs fire pretty slow. I guess they're tossing the whole SMG concept in the trash in favor of PDWs, but at least SMGs generally fired fast for their weak damage. Weapons like the PP2000, UMP, and even the PDW-R are just so lackluster when it comes to speed, which is a lot more important for weapons that are stuck in close range only. And now that I think about it, why is everything branded PDW anyway? It was my understanding that SMGs/PDWs were the same thing, except they fire pistol and rifle rounds respectively. I know the PP2000 and UMP at least should be SMGs. And why did the PP2000 in BC2 fire so damn fast, yet this one is so slow? I'd believe this one more, since I can't imagine something so small firing too fast (although now I'm reminded of MAC).
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Jan 23, 2012 16:05:40 GMT -5
And now that I think about it, why is everything branded PDW anyway? It was my understanding that SMGs/PDWs were the same thing, except they fire pistol and rifle rounds respectively. I know the PP2000 and UMP at least should be SMGs. And why did the PP2000 in BC2 fire so gosh darn golly gee whiz fast, yet this one is so slow? I'd believe this one more, since I can't imagine something so small firing too fast (although now I'm reminded of MAC). The designation of the PDW marquee is weird, I agree. However, the way they are displayed in the game is pretty accurate from what I understand. PP-2K: Actually IRL fires at 600 RPM, like the game. Unlike the game, it has a 44 round magazine available, instead of 40. Don't know why they didn't include that. Extremely compact, fold-out stock for better automatic fire and size flexibility. Much shorter than most carbines and fires pistol ammo (9x19mm) UMP: There are several variants, the one that has the most video game cred is the .45 ACP version, chambered for the heavy, subsonic .45 pistol round. Has folding buttstock, but looks much bulkier. I could see how this one would be considered a carbine, judging from the seeming lack of usability in the weapon's length. MP7: Designed from the ground up, like the PP2K, to be a compact PDW. A full 4.3 inches shorter than the UMP. Fires purpose made 4.7mm rounds designed to defeat body armor. The rounds don't deliver a lot of stopping power, but are light and soldiers can carry a few extra clips because of the weight. The close-quarter potential is amplified by the tiny design. PDW-R: Designed as an ultra compact weapon which retains the ability to fire the 5.56 NATO round. The philosophy of this weapon is to give people who have access to the rounds (soldiers) a back-up weapon. It's capacity of a close-range weapon is suspect because of the design of the 5.56 round, which is meant to deliver stopping force beyond 100m. Since it has no folding stock, it is technically tied (with the P90) for the longest of the PDWs, clocking in at 19 inches. Very weird weapon indeed, but perhaps carrying the most practicality for the modern soldier. P90: Firing the purpose-designed 5-7 pistol round (yes, it is a pistol round, used in the FN Five-seveN), the P90 is perhaps the most technically amazing of the PDW's. It has a fixed stock, a magazine that looks stunning, and the great barrrel-length of a bullpup. Ammo designed to defeat body armor is coupled with a well-designed recoil dampening system, this weapon is extremely deadly, if costly, but has been in use in a variety of different defense scenarios. PRAY AND SPRAY, HOLD DOWN TRIGGER TO WIN!AS VAL: Not a PDW at all, in the slightest. This is a special forces rifle similar to the AKS-74U, built from the ground up to serve as a high stopping power rifle operated behind enemy lines. The 9x39mm bullet (which I think I have raved about enough) would not work very well in a pistol, similar to the rifle round of the PDW. PP-19: Pet project with helix magazine, pretty interesting. Fires the same bullets as the famed Makarov pistol, and coming with a magazine of not 55rds, but 64 rounds. This weapon is just compact enough to fit the CQB niche, and fires a pistol round. Other than that, I really don't know much about it, other than its strange magazine (some youtube users call it the dildo gun (NSFW highlight to see).
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Jan 23, 2012 17:29:59 GMT -5
I'd like the PP2000 and PP-19 a lot more if they had that capacity by default. Even so, I don't think it's enough:
PP2000, 25-10, 600rpm, 44 rounds vs P90, 20-10, 900rpm, 50 rounds vs PP-19, 16.7-9.1, 900rpm, 64 rounds
Still no clear winner in my book. Even with extra capacity, the PP2000 is still too slow to win even battles against ARs and Carbines, and the PP-19 still tickles enemies. I'd take the P90 over those two regardless. I don't want the all-class weapons becoming powerhouses, but the PDW balance right now is pretty wacky. Unless something big happens, I'm still P90/MP7 or bust. VAL is a a little different, since I'm talking "SMG" style here. VAL is perfect in my opinion, even without extended.
But eh...getting off topic I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Jan 24, 2012 9:54:34 GMT -5
I'd like the PP2000 and PP-19 a lot more if they had that capacity by default. Even so, I don't think it's enough: PP2000, 25-10, 600rpm, 44 rounds vs P90, 20-10, 900rpm, 50 rounds vs PP-19, 16.7-9.1, 900rpm, 64 rounds Still no clear winner in my book. Even with extra capacity, the PP2000 is still too slow to win even battles against ARs and Carbines, and the PP-19 still tickles enemies. I'd take the P90 over those two regardless. I don't want the all-class weapons becoming powerhouses, but the PDW balance right now is pretty wacky. Unless something big happens, I'm still P90/MP7 or bust. VAL is a a little different, since I'm talking "SMG" style here. VAL is perfect in my opinion, even without extended. But eh...getting off topic I guess. Since the PP2000 uses the 9mm round that the MP443 uses, I don't see why it shouldn't be 25-12.5 via the balance design. It would be closer to balanced if it were the case. The PP-19 just is frustrating - even a 64 rd. magazine wouldn't give it a huge marginal boost. P90, it's definitely the high capacity sweet spot out of the guns. The MP7 fills a similar, silencer-less niche. I just wish it started with more rounds, like the P90. There is absolutely no reason why it should start with fewer excess rounds than the P90.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Jan 24, 2012 14:28:49 GMT -5
25-12.5 PP2000 would be fine with me, but the UMP would need some serious work done if that was the case. However I can understand why it's at 10 min. I got about 80 of my 100 PP2000 kills within two or three rounds (you might have been there, heh), and if there's one thing I learned, it's that the PP2000 is a laser: no recoil, low spread, no bursting necessary. I think it might be a little too good with 12.5, or at least the PDW-R would need a buff to 14.3 or something.
|
|