rogdozz wrote:Could still use a little balancing in favor of insurgent AK weapons
If we were to look at the amount of damage pumped out at a certain distance compared to the amount of recoil experienced by the shooter, the 7.62x39mm AKs are more or less perfectly nestled in-between the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO firearms respectively. The issue with insurgents is their lack of body armour, which makes both AK 47 a 2-3HKO against BluFor with BluFor also 2-3HKOing the insurgents back. Given that the recoil on any 5.56 rifle is about 25% lower than on the AK 47 give or take, what it comes down to is not the damage output, but the
ease with which one weapon system allows for 2 - 3 hits in quick succession.
And yes, this is a concern for balance, IF we were to assume that Insurgents(in the Ins game mode) were to have an equal amount of resources, which they don't. INS has INFINITE tickets. The weapons/equipment are balanced in an asymmetric fashion and have been for the past 10+ years. If I'm leading Ins, I'm not expecting to roll over a BluFor squad, my sole intention is stalling until they aren't reaching the cache. And on the opposite end, if I'm unable to roll over the Insurgents with my better weaponry, I know I'm in deep shit.
AlonTavor wrote:We've got people are thinking full-auto mag dumping with x4 optics is relevant, which is exactly what we wanted to remove.
It legit didn't use to be an issue previously to magdump with a magnified 900 RPM weapon BECAUSE the code was botched. This was explained in very understandable terms by camo in the DevCast we released prior to the update, and that the fix we applied would achieve both a better balance of semi vs full auto, as well as nerfing the 900 RPMers.
Comparing a weapon like the C7 to the AK74M, if we were to take the intrinsic values of the 5.56 cartridge and compare them to the 5.45 one, we would expect 5.56 have more recoil, with the higher fire rate amplifying the recoil experienced by the shooter. However, what actually used to be the case that a weapon like C7 was firing
FASTER
while putting out
LESS RECOIL
and doing
THE SAME DAMAGE
as the AK74M. I don't care who you are and how many hours you've played, but to publicly state
that this behaviour(and the implications it has on balance) was "desired that way by DICE",
that the old behaviour was much superior and
that the ones who managed to figure out a way to fix it have no idea what they were/are doing - real talk, what is your understanding of balanced game design?
UncleSmek wrote:Problem is One person already did something that degraded the game and the devs continued to give him more influence over all of the weapons in the game.
You got something to say to me? Scared to even mention my name, are we, eh?
This has NOTHING to do with me, quite frankly whatever VOODOO MAJIK Alon and Mats came up with to fix this is much beyond what I can do. What I can do however - much to your dismay as we know - is be quite good at the game, to the point that you VERY QUICKLY went back on your "The responsible Dev has to be shit at this game" rebuttal last time and turned it into the opposite. Omegalul. Alon is incorrect however in saying that I was inactive before it was introduced. That was not the case.
And even IF I was the one responsible - the 900 RPM fix has been asked for for years, so you naming(or rather not naming) and shaming me would be utterly ineffective.
The entire team(at least as far as I can tell) was IN AGREEMENT that this fix was awesome and would be exactly that - repairing something DICE left in a broken state and never bothered nor were able to fix and caused issues during previous iterations of the game and BF2 as a whole, to an extend.
If you disagree with that, ok, let's hear how you'd go from here, because we are so not walking back on a bugfix. Just do yourself a favour and do not expect us to be receptive towards you given the previous mud-slinging.
[/url]
