This is a huge graphical downgrade. You're trying to balance the rate at which people take damage at long range at enter into fights by simply making each other not appear? You're saying that instead of embracing the fantastic mechanic that empires has, that is so rare in a hitscan FPS game, that players can view from a distance the encounter and decide how to fight, you're going to change empires such that it encourages "shoot everything that moves" gameplay. The latter is far more shallow, not to mention highly graphically inferior. I can't oversell this point enough; the feeling that you are in an epic battlefield is reinforced by the ability to witness situations and fights at a distance. That's one of empire's selling points, the reason people sell it as "epic". I'm going to respond to some of the responses I got from my last posts: "Me've had encounters in empires where me and an enemy have seen each other from a long way away but ran towards each other to get into range PD:$5 says you can count those encounters on your hand. " Actually, I'd say that this happens more than ten times a match, to both of us, so no. Let me clarify: You will probably not even notice that you are doing this - the human brain is adapted to discarding irrelevant information. Any time that an enemy is running down the valley of slaughtered towards you or any other time, you don't start firing. You're actually suggesting that the instance you see an enemy, you always drop to crouch and begin to shoot? Of course not, the effective range for the smg's and rifles is far less than the max view distance. Even the rifles, against a mobile target, will be mostly ineffective at that range. "Me:you watch enemies setting up turrets on the far side of the lake on slaughtered, or a squad rushing across the hills opposite you in isle. Predom enjoy watching this stuff, and I'm sure my enemy enjoys it too. What I DO NOT enjoy is being sniped from across the lake from slaughtered, from the islands on isle to other islands, from the hills of mid-dustorm to NF/BE base." These are just wrong. The examples I gave were specific examples of when you view but cannot engage, you'll be ineffective. I'm going to repeat this because it seems not to have come across strong enough: The issue here is the distance at which people engage in combat due to their effective weapon range, and the rate at which people take damage from long range fights. That such a thing is referred to as a "broken game play mechanic" suggests only that you don't understand the issue, because a sliding scale as I describe cannot be broken. "Me: You can also introduce a small damage fall off. TF2 has a huge damage fall off, and people don't complain- a small reasonable one in empires would allow players not to take too much damage at range would be fine. Predom: In case you're rage compelled you to simply post without reading, people DID complain when falloff was introduced. " I did read the thread, the key phrase to highlight is where I say "a small reasonable one". In other words, a damage fall off, whether due to accuracy or decrease in health lost, that is less that the one previously complained about, but more than what we currently have. I bring up TF2 here as proof that damage falloffs can work without too many complaints. TF2 clearly is relevant for comparison here. "Me: ultimately, what this discussion is going to lead to is that we need to find a balance between the following: -weakness in weapons so that the distance of engagement (especially for rifleman who will naturally have a longer range) isn't so far that it's frustrating to play against. -weapons "feeling" right. Players will indeed complain that the weapons suck, even if they all equally weak and so it's balanced. Predom: This is basically the same thing said twice. There is no balance for long-range combat, because it shouldn't exist. Empires is removing (or removed?) the scout_rifle because there sniping in Empires is annoying, among other things." They're opposing ideas. One is saying that it want weaker long range weapons, one stronger. I think if we're going to move this discussion we're going to have to reach a consensus first on the fundamental clash of opinions here: You believe that people shoot as soon as they can see the enemy. You believe that there is no dynamic. You believe that a damage falloff would not work as it has proved somewhat unpopular when previously implemented. would this be fair? I believe that in most situations, people do not shoot when they see the enemy, even though you may not notice these situations I believe this is an interesting dynamic, where a player chooses when to engage the enemy. I believe that viewing battles from a long way away, and being able to see large battles are key to the 'epic' atmosphere of empires. So if we could resolve this, then we can move on towards a solution On a side note. I'm not going to sink to taking the piss as you seem to enjoy, predom. I don't know how you've got like this, perhaps the constant bullying from some of the other assholes in the forum you went through when you first came here makes you feel like you need to act like a tough guy. It just reminds me that I'm not working with professionals but a bunch of teenagers playing the game that they like. I can't be dealing with these egos.