|
Post by rudybojangles on Feb 12, 2012 5:46:57 GMT -5
Given the developers' stances on how BF3 should be balanced, there is not a lot we, the players, can do about how imbalanced the play is right now. So I have come up with yet another way to balance, keeping in their "bullet = damage" (at least on comparable weapons) design.
How about this: Damage falloff is determined solely by bullet speed and bullet speed is solely determined by RPM. The ranges where the bullet (a) begins to lose damage, and (b) stops losing damage should be determined by a bullet's flight time, not by distance.
Here me out: Guns with lower RPM can afford to load more powerful charges in (okay, maybe not IRL) while still having controllable recoil. Fine and dandy, they get extra bullet velocity. Not only that, but these weapons now get the extra benefit of added damage on ranges where high RPM weapons would start to lose their damage! The worst offenders (QBZ-95B, AK-74U, L85, PP-2000 even, RPK) would have greatly boosted bullet velocity over their peers, the "winners" like the FAMAS, AEK, A-91, MG36, etc. Maybe even 1.5x or more velocity. That would mean that their range before damage dropoff would increase x1.5, and their falloff range would increase 1.5x! Think about it, it would still leave the high RPM weapons as very proficient killing machines, but it would blur the line for top weapon after about 20m, when the shit hits the fan.
I can't believe they haven't tried to implement something like this. These values could be affected by attachments like suppressors (half range, something COD did awhile back yo) or HBars (velocity +20%). This, I feel like, is the answer I have been looking for to my gun woes.
I am too tired to make real sense, I know, but what do the bros think? I also realize that anything I say here will never reach DICE's ears, so this is just a mind circlejerk.
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Feb 12, 2012 10:19:39 GMT -5
It would make perfect sense. As it is now, the line between good and subpar guns is pretty blurry once you get to about medium range. RoF means nothing when you're forced to burst, but the fast weapons still have an advantage up close while not really sacrificing anything. Extra velocity would give both a niche at close and long range respectively.
I'd also add that slower weapons could have slightly higher recoil or spread recovery. As far as I know, the recovery for each only kicks in when you stop firing, which would prevent the slower weapons from becoming CoD guns.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Feb 13, 2012 14:48:28 GMT -5
It would make perfect sense. As it is now, the line between good and subpar guns is pretty blurry once you get to about medium range. RoF means nothing when you're forced to burst, but the fast weapons still have an advantage up close while not really sacrificing anything. Extra velocity would give both a niche at close and long range respectively. I'd also add that slower weapons could have slightly higher recoil or spread recovery. As far as I know, the recovery for each only kicks in when you stop firing, which would prevent the slower weapons from becoming CoD guns. Agree with your comment on spread recovery. The system is poor as it stands currently, greatly favoring high RPM weapons - this is due to recovery not occuring during shooting and recovery not starting until x (where x = delay between bullets in automatic fire) after the last shot. For instance, the AN-94 takes 1.5x as long to begin recovery after stopping shooting compared to the AEK-971 wat. The one tricky area is the balance of the aforementioned AN-94. Do you balance it in automatic fire or in burst-mode?
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Feb 13, 2012 17:33:51 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, the AN-94 shouldn't even have automatic fire. But anyway, I'd rather have it balanced around burst. One thing I think they should do for auto (if it isn't implemented already, can't tell) is have the first two shots go at 1200, then have the rest of the fire go 600. I believe that's a feature of the real gun, and it would do a lot to offset the slow speed and heavy recoil it suffers from. Imagine a head-on fight with a FAMAS. He has a huge advantage overall, but you can stick the first 50 damage into him faster. And if you get good enough at controlling it, you'd never need burst mode again. But if we're really talking about balancing the AN-94, all I want is the ability to mount the M26 on it.
Stupid high RoF weapons. I don't mind using high RoF weapons occasionally or just for screwing around, but I'm more of a middle of the road guy myself. Damage and accuracy (spread) matter a lot more to me. Too bad the majority of the weapons in each class are mostly the same, making RoF king. I know I can use whatever, but it'd be nice to use a slower weapon that actually has a real advantage. I can't complain too much though, since the M16 is lovely, and my precious G3 will be returning to glory sometime soon...maybe...
|
|
phale
True Bro
Posts: 635
|
Post by phale on Feb 13, 2012 20:25:29 GMT -5
I think the L85A2 and the QBB and QBZ were balanced decently well for their low rate of fire - the L85 has very little recoil, and the QBB and QBZ had extremely high muzzle velocity for their class. They won't beat the FAMAS at close range, but they certainly can at longer distances. In fact, they're good enough that I am willing to use them most of the time, even over the faster firing weapons. The true losers here are the 'old' slow fire rate weapons, particularly the AK74M and the Type 88. Overall, I do think that most weapons are balanced fairly decently - the key thing the devs have to introduce are quirks, little odd unique things about each gun that can differentiate it between other guns with similar fire rate. Perhaps the FAMAS and AEK should get 'negative' quirks, like slower ADS, poorer accuracy on the move, poorer first shot recoil, poorer velocity, etc, while the slow guns should get positive quirks.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Feb 13, 2012 21:33:58 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, the AN-94 shouldn't even have automatic fire. But anyway, I'd rather have it balanced around burst. One thing I think they should do for auto (if it isn't implemented already, can't tell) is have the first two shots go at 1200, then have the rest of the fire go 600. I believe that's a feature of the real gun, and it would do a lot to offset the slow speed and heavy recoil it suffers from. Imagine a head-on fight with a FAMAS. He has a huge advantage overall, but you can stick the first 50 damage into him faster. And if you get good enough at controlling it, you'd never need burst mode again. But if we're really talking about balancing the AN-94, all I want is the ability to mount the M26 on it. Stupid high RoF weapons. I don't mind using high RoF weapons occasionally or just for screwing around, but I'm more of a middle of the road guy myself. Damage and accuracy (spread) matter a lot more to me. Too bad the majority of the weapons in each class are mostly the same, making RoF king. I know I can use whatever, but it'd be nice to use a slower weapon that actually has a real advantage. I can't complain too much though, since the M16 is lovely, and my precious G3 will be returning to glory sometime soon...maybe... IRL AN-94 fires around 1800 RPM on the first few shots, or 0.03333 seconds apart I would love also to see it implemented for the auto fire. Amazing!
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Feb 13, 2012 22:12:56 GMT -5
Isn't RoF tied to frame rate for consoles? So even if the PC could handle it, I doubt they'd implement a RoF that high to be "fair." Although maybe I'm thinking of CoD. I think I remember them saying rapid fire doesn't work on SMGs or something.
But 1800 RPM? Damn. It'd be like the AN-94 was a 50-34 semi-auto with 15 capacity.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Feb 14, 2012 8:45:03 GMT -5
Isn't RoF tied to frame rate for consoles? So even if the PC could handle it, I doubt they'd implement a RoF that high to be "fair." Although maybe I'm thinking of CoD. I think I remember them saying rapid fire doesn't work on SMGs or something. But 1800 RPM? gosh darn golly gee whiz. It'd be like the AN-94 was a 50-34 semi-auto with 15 capacity. Hmm where have we seen 50-34 before... I know! Semi-auto snipers! I am sure you are aware, just being playful. Yeah, the AN would be better than sniper rifles if that were the case, but cmon, you know you'd like it. I remember me being upset, when consoles were my only option, when it was announced that there would be a 24 player limit, because the console's couldn't handle it. My beef is, the servers are similar or the same between consoles and PCs. If you don't think the consoles could render 64 players given their limitations, why don't you just limit the graphics/player model detail? I would love to play 64 man on console (might even pick up a copy if it were implemented) with lower graphics if they could make it work. They instead chose beauty over function, and console players are left with a bastardized version of the game. I don't see why there would be a limit within the Frostbyte 2 engine with so low RPM. I do, however, remember some bros talking about the miniguns on the Blackhawks in BF:BC2 not firing at their advertised 2000 RPM due to limitations with Frostbyte 1, so definitely a possibility.
|
|
mrite
True Bro
Posts: 239
|
Post by mrite on Feb 26, 2012 10:39:41 GMT -5
well, the idea way to balance the game would be to use a cubic function for the bullets, perhaps with an asymptote, with the bullet damage being related to the time that the bullet has been flying, making the silencer better at close range, and point blank being less than the ideal range of the bullet. then lots of fun could be had with balancing, with things such as decreasing velocity for close range, giving the heavy barrel more of a point if it were to increase bullet speed. also this could help with the balancing of buck, as it would presumably be the only thing at full damage at close range, giving it a massive advantage. thus the game would have a truly innovative balance approach
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Feb 27, 2012 21:11:56 GMT -5
well, the idea way to balance the game would be to use a cubic function for the bullets, perhaps with an asymptote, with the bullet damage being related to the time that the bullet has been flying, making the silencer better at close range, and point blank being less than the ideal range of the bullet. then lots of fun could be had with balancing, with things such as decreasing velocity for close range, giving the heavy barrel more of a point if it were to increase bullet speed. also this could help with the balancing of buck, as it would presumably be the only thing at full damage at close range, giving it a massive advantage. thus the game would have a truly innovative balance approach Like this? (2nd page of "Hey Guy")Not hatin, mostly because it took me a long time to find my own post
|
|