[Suggestion] Buff muzzle velocities for ALL weapons

In a fantasy game, a Ice Dragon is more vulnerable to fire spells as opposed to a Lava Dragon. Make sense? Yes. Is it realistic? No, Dragons do not exist.

PS2 is a place where you are revived by a green ray to talk about realism is ridiculous. However, as a player, I expect a consistent game-play experience.

Consistency means weapons work in a specific and predictable way (whatever it is). And here come the problems: PS2 has no holistic view about weapons, instead there is a collection of weapons born with different approaches in mind, coupled with a plethora of parameters to handle.

Some example:

(1) Head-shot multiplier: in PS2 an head-shot grants more damage than a body shot. So far so good. However the head-shot multiplier is not consistent:

- some weapons have none (e.g. rocket launchers)
- weapons with Unstable Ammo have a reduced multiplier
- the Emissary has a reduced multiplier
- most of the weapons have 2.0
- some odd weapons (Tomoe, Daymio) have an higher multiplier

There is no consistency here. The rocket launchers have no multipliers otherwise those would be OHK, the UA messes with hit-boxes priorities, God only knows what's wrong with the Emissary and the Tomoe and Daymio have too low body damage and this is compensated by higher HS multiplier. It is all about tinkering left and right.

(2) initial CoF: one would expect the initial CoF to be consistent with the weapon: so long-barrelled weapons should be more precise (duh) and short barrelled weapons should be less precise. Automatic weapons to be less precise compared to bolt action ones and so on.

However it is not like that. There are "odd" weapons with a 0 CoF despite being automatic ones (e.g. the SAW or the Tanto just to make a few examples)

(3) Bullet drop: one would expect that speed dictates bullet drop. Energy weapons (VS) have no drop, okay. But the others? Oh well it is not that simple. There is bullet speed but there is gravity (tinkering again). So if I take a weapon like the Archer and I fire with it the 525 m/s bullet drops like a stone, whereas the 550 m/s bullet of the Blackhand flies much better.

and so on...

This is simply a consequence of nerfing/buffing endlessly and having way too parameters to tinker with (bad design: simplicity is a trademark of good design, complexity is the trademark of unclear design).

The good thing is that DBG has started to introduce some common sense, e.g. in aligning SPA, HVA and suppressors so their behavior is consistent. Let's hope.

Bad idea OP.

Just look at weapons with rather fast muzzle velocity.
Look at the NS-15 for christ's sake, the 600 m/s and low recoil makes it so popular and easy to use that it's unreal despite the bad accuracy of the bullets beyond medium-close range.
If you buffed all the guns muzzle velocity the game would change radically.

PS:
I used to snipe people with the TSAR from render distance, and now i'm doing it with the dragoon, git gud.

Although the image is from 2 years ago where there might have been some tweaks in velocity, I think for the most part it still stands. Vehicle velocities are significantly more decreased than infantry velocities.

Which, again, does make some sense. Your trying to compact 4 km into about 500 meters tops with vehicles, while with infantry, your trying to compact 800 meters, into 200 meters.

it's a 1/8 range scale, versus a 1/4 range scale.

Well to be fair both are different domains with different skill sets and such. Infantry don't really fight at longer ranges and when they do velocity matters less than other stats do.

Tanks on the other hand are big targets and would have a harder time dodging shells if they all flew at 600m/s. Harassers wouldn't be very useful outside of stealth and landing shots wouldn't be at all difficult.

Point here being is that velocity matters in different ways.

No! Bad standardization of extreme oversimplification!
Your comparison for dragons and PS2 is correct but fire dragons in hot places is a pet peeve of mine. Most fantasy creatures in a vulcano will be fire resistant and often even use fire, so a dragon who breathes fire inside a vulcano would make it harder for himself to eat as he cant use his fire breath to kill his food.
What you would find in a vulcano or other hot places is an ice dragon. Whatever generates the ice can keep him cool in the vulcano or other hot place and with that much cooling you are likely fire resistant or even fire immune. Enemies that arent fire resistant can get a scoop of lava (use the wings to scoop) or whatever in their face and enemies that are fire resistant can get extinguished and killed by the icy breath.

Definitely. Few complain about sound in space in Star Wars or Star Trek as long as you are consistent, but if you break that consistency it becomes a jarring plothole. PS2 is internally consistent by not having a consistent weapon system. Muzzle velocity, ammo size and weight have lipservice to their potential capabilities. In general a larger caliber will deal more damage but only compared to similar weapons in its category and the amount of damage does not go up by any formula based on the caliber size. But otherwise PS2 weapons have a lot of consistency. snipers all have similar patterns in accuracy, damage, velocity etc. Theres an internal consistency that bolt-actions deal more damage than semi-auto's etc.

Sure, if infantry and vehicles existed in completely different realms and never interacted...

But if you have a tank and a rifleman side by side trying to hit the same infantry target at range, it oddly becomes much easier to hit someone with a rifle round than a high velocity saboted round. Which makes absolutely no sense.

So long as infantry and vehicles occupy the same battlespace, their weaponry ought to have been reduced by the same amount as they're operating in the same field.

The same is true for explosives. Vehicle explosives have been nerfed far in excess of what infantry explosives have been reduced by. I did the math long ago and if hand grenades were treated as badly as 120mm HE was, then you'd have to toss a grenade within a pencil-length of your target to seriously injure them.

You can't compare vehicle ordnance to infantry consumables just because they both go boom. Grenades and C4 have a significant cost per shot. Vehicles can spam that HE indefinitely and constantly after the initial investment. They're two completely different beasts.

Yeah those poor 120mm HE explosives!

Real life grenade: +/-25 dollars
real life 120mm HE explosive: 800+ dollars
real life full MBT: 2,6 to 12+ million.

In-game grenade: 50 resources
in-game 120mm HE: 1600 resources Free
In-game MBT: 5.200.000 resources 450 resources!

120mm HE and the tanks it came on are extremely overpowered for their cost compared to real-life. If you want to have a real 120mm HE explosion "because real" then you are going to have to fork over the real price as well. But as usual that's not what you want isn't it Chingles? You want to have real-life tank capabilities but for the cheap cheap price of PS2 resources.

"But thar infantry be free!"
No it isn't. resources are a time investment in PS2, and the biggest thing tank players always throw at you is "but if I run out of resources I have to wait X minutes!". 50 resources = 60 seconds. Dying takes 10 seconds+the time to return to the battle, so there's a cost involved in dying as infantry and this one is unskippable, a good tank player can still make his tank last long enough that he regained his resources and still do damage.

Well, I mean, if you want a 1/8 distance scale for infantry as well, then your maximum effective weapon range would be about 100 meters for a sniper. 60, if your using a long range AR. I think that would cause yet more complaints. Or be good for comedy. One of the two. On the other hand, a 1/4 scale for vehicles would make little sense given the limitations of terrain and render distances. Particularly render distances, which is a game engine/hardware limitation.

It's also important to remember, even if render distance didn't impose the limits that they do, you would still have the terrain induced limits. Considering map dimensions, if neither terrain nor render distance were limiters and weapons were realistic, your average tank duel would involve a player at warp gate, and another at the crown.

So you scale things down with the hope that you can get a decent feel to exist for all area's of combat despite the required scaling.