I'm so glad that you can see the deficiency of a unique trait in the rifleman class. Well lobster, we can always take a look at the scout rifle. with ammo upgrade, you would have 65 possible kills per holding capacity. with a BEHR at 150 round extras and a 40 round clip loaded. a kill would average 5 rounds. two to miss and three to kill. 8 kills per clip. (1 + 150/40)*8 = 38kills per holding capacity. oh wait a sec, ammo upgrade to the rifleman and +150rounds = 30 additional possible kills. the rifleman with ammoupgrade totals 68kills > scout 65 (assuming all headshots)
I did like that the weapons favoured good positioning in 2.12. As it stands even the best positioning won't do much in the face of superior numbers. I liked that if you flanked the enemy you could kill them all easily, because it promoted thinking about how to flank them and avoid being seen. The current balance fucks that up, because the weapons are less powerful. I've had people turn round and shoot me after I start shooting them simply because they were using an AR and I was using an SMG. At close range and with superior positioning on my part that shouldn't matter, I should win. That and there is not point using anything other than prone any more, before the weapons were effective in any stance but now the way to win is to go prone and keep shooting at the enemy until it dies, no other tactic works, you can't leg it to cover, then emerge somewhere unexpected and kill the enemy because the gun isn't accurate/powerful enough and you can't do that anyway if you're prone because moving while firing is fucked. I don't think 2.2 has really done anything for getting killed at random though, because if the enemy is already prone and looking for targets he'll shoot you and damage you severely by the time you get to cover, and then damage you some more when you try to kill him. So personally I'd prefer it if you kept the powerful weapons, and introduced regenerating health, so if you get hit a bit moving between cover that doesn't break the game. Introduce leaning as well, because that would let you use cover better, and the points still go to the players who outflank the enemy, but you keep the power and fun of the old weapons, add in more survivability for players (by making them harder to hit through skill, not by making the guns worse) and continue to encourage close range fighting (because players leaning out from behind cover, ready to duck back and regenerate at a moment's notice are not easy to kill without flanking). Balance isn't worth anything if the experience you balanced isn't fun, and the new guns just aren't. They aren't responsive, they aren't powerful, they just aren't enjoyable to use. They might be balanced, I don't know, I didn't think there was anything particularly unbalanced about the old ones, both sides could kill each other marvellously, but they aren't fun.
IMO you should never be able to win with an SMG against a riflemans rifle. If else its completly senseless to choose the rifleman class. Its not worth it.
You mean other than the rifleman having completely superior base stats? It does more damage, over longer distance, and has more combat perks, that isn't enough of a reason? It has to be totally unkillable by any other class? Remind me again why it's a good idea to balance four infantry classes by having one of them be completely impervious to the other three.
If I play as comm I dont want anyone on my team rifleman atm, its completly counter productive. A class completly designed to kill infantry should be able to deal with any situation involving infantry. Engi = builder/building destroyer Gren = Anti-tank Scout = Intelligence Rifleman = Anti infantry, so why should any other class be good at killing infantry?
Because if the rifleman plays badly (i.e allows himself to be flanked and doesn't pay attention) he shouldn't be able to shrug it off. If you want a class that just kills infantry without contest why don't you mount a turret on wheels? Really speaking the whole idea of 1 anti infantry class is hugely flawed, I pointed out a way to fix this some time ago.
... so half of the community agreeing is your idea of a reasonable outcome for a patch? That's just plain wrong. If you put those statistics into the game almost one entire team playing the game will disagree with the game mechanics.
Mayama, although I agree that the rifleman should be anti infantry, he shouldnt be invincible. All Mr. Scout and I want is for rifles to be able to kill things before they can deal any damage back. I hate having to take damage after I kill someone. In 2.12 the law of "theres always a gun faster than yours" held true amongst the ranks of riflewhores like myself, burns, mayama, pwnzor, deadpool and countless others.
wow, 100 ppl already voted here. didnt know that there are so many active forum members. yes, changes to infantry weapons need some tweaks.
You. Are. An. Idiot. By your logic, the devs should be pleasing the minority of the community, instead of the majority. MORE PEOPLE LIKE THE NEW WEAPONS THAN PEOPLE HATE THEM! Its pretty simple! Why would anyone, short of some manipulative plan or retardation, try to make the MINORITY happy? Your saying that the devs should make fewer people happy and more mad! If this poll is any indication, the new weapons are more popular than not. Now stop pulling shit out of your ass and
You. Missed. The. Point. If just under half your players don't like the changes that's a problem, yes you should please the majority, you should please the significant majority. Just over half your players is not good enough, if you get a fifty/fifty split you don't side with whoever gets one or two extra votes, you scrap the idea and rethink it so you don't get a fifty/fifty split, you should be aiming for eighty/twenty at least. Think beyond 'oh well this is what we have so we have to side with the majority' a game designer can have whatever he wants, don't stick to decisions just because they've been made, because then if you make a bad decision you can't change it.
It can be changed, but hes saying that the old weapons scripts should have been used, when obviously the majority likes the new ones. I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement. The new weapons are far from perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better. Plus, replicating 2.1 weapons would mean like a 1 month delay on release since the old scripts aren't compatible. This is a better way because we have better balanced weapons, and that month saved can be used to better tune things.
The only time I said that the scripts should be reverted to 2.1 was before I knew that the engines had been switched over for 2.2 Also I don't recall saying the weapons should be put back to 2.1, they should just be more like 2.1