Don't nerf anything. Improve things.

Funny. According to some self-declared "professional" gamers, I am not allowed to make suggestions or have ideas because I only got one kill on a sniper rifle, ever. (tried it, didn't like it, preferred the SMG).

That's the problem with toxic gaming forums if they're allowed to get too toxic: ideas like that would get shot down because of who said them instead of being weighed on their own merits.

About the Striker dumbfire "no boom on infantry" idea: I admit it's because it looks a LOT like the "Anti-Gear" rifle from the Heavy Gear RPG, and it'd be cool if it had a similar firing mechanic.

You are going to get some serious hatred when you go after certain topics (strikers, NC, snipers, UBGL). The sniper is a rather hard weapon to use so i wouldn't be surprised if i were you.

The problem lies within the people (doesn't only apply to forums tbh). Many people see their opinions as a fact or reality and anything that opposes them must be incorrect

I agree that sniper rifles are hard weapons to use. Hell, I gave up trying.

My issue is that some people DO use them well, and have been using them well for years, even decades. Some of these guys have been fanatical enough about protecting their little corner of the gaming world that they've been outraged at cone-of-fire mechanics due to the dogma of "where I point is where it goes" that Quake 2's railgun provided them. Any game that deviated, even with bullet drop, felt their wrath for a while.

And so it comes here, where there's a sci-fi setting with exotic nanotech gimmicks, personal energy shields, and the like, but that old "I got really good at the railgun in Quake 2" one-trick pony is trotted out again, and they expect the same adulation, awe, praise, and rigid mechanics to feed it, forever.

I think the same treatment you just did for the phoenix should apply to snipers (more skill = more reward).

Getting a bodyshot on a moving target is hard, getting a headshot on a moving target is insanely hard. I would also like to disagree and i do not think anyone has mastered sniping in planetside 2. Personally, i do not have an issue with nanoweave since i don't snipe from far ranges. Believe it or not, i snipe mostly within point blank to like 20m ranges

Buff Nanoweave. Right now, it's barely an option over Flak. That must be fixed.

Okay, seriously, lets buff sniper rifles! Or just remove rifle sway, or even remove the asbestos from all the Infiltrator suits. While we're at it, buff the damage for TR weapons across the board so that they match NC damage per bullet. Lets face it, NC's gonna get removed at some point. e. e

My problem is with the "all headshots with anything with the word sniper on them must instantly kill" thing. There should be exceptions, such as being well beyond optimal range, or having high levels of nanoweave. Simply saying "X must always do Y" is dogmatic.

The subject wording sounds good on paper, but in reality you have to nerf things in games. Because many things are simply released overpowered, or over-tweaked. Nobody likes nerfs, but they're inevitable in games.

Spoken like the man who has not played infiltrator.

Boly actions have no redeeming qualities other then one hit kill headshots. That's it. Nothing more. No other advantage, all downsides after that. You trade everything for one gimmick and you have no options vs anything vehicle... and everyone is super non-chalant about 11 certs totally screwing the only thing bolt actions have.

Maybe up to something like Nano 4/5

Currently you only need to spend 11 certs to negate a headshot so any change would be good. As for the range thing i disagree since the further you go the harder it is to get a headshot

There's the "u r nub/scrub so no opinion 4 u" attack again.

I take it I have to be a biochemist to tell people "don't eat at the local fast food joint, my kid was hospitalized with food poisoning" too?

It's getting old hat, the "you are not allowed to have an opinion unless you're so deeply invested in something that you'd already agree with me" trick.

I disagree here, but only halfway. If it took a higher grade of nanoweave, fine (but inevitably more and more people would have it anyway, oh well). But the other part, not so much: it encourages a less-helpful kind of sniping that involves skulking around really far away, gradually padding the killcount while people respawn faster than they can reasonably kill them, contributing nothing of value to the battle.

Since you participated so much in my nanoweave thread, I thought I would participate in yours. With regards to BASR's vs. Nanoweave, I've always advocated for increasing the HS multiplier on the sniper rifles rather than nerfing nanoweave, or buffing the falloff damage to the BASR's. Increasing the HS multiplier rewards headshots without rewarding body shots. It also wouldn't change the efficiacy of NW on players engaging in automatic small arms engagements.

There are very few things I want to see nerfed in this game. I'd rather the max suits see a balancing with regards to ZOE, either by improving lockdown and aegis shield, or by altering the ZOE ability somewhat (i.e. a cooldown ability).

Also, with regards to the fracture/falcon comparison, that's kind of the wrong comparison to make. Fractures should be compared to ravens. And falcons should be compared to pounders... but I do appreciate the point you are trying to make.

So in principle, I agree with you to an extent on the basis of your OP. But we probably come to different conclusions on some of these, certainly the BASR vs. NW one.

I welcome your contribution, and I definitely think the TR MAX could use a resist buff when anchored. Aegis shield might work with one arm being allowed to continue firing while the shield is up (maybe reduced rate of fire and longer reloads in case it gets too crazy).

Fractures and Ravens seem to play and feel quite a bit different to me. Sure, they both have very good range, but one (raven) is very hard to land a shot with on infantry at very close range, where the fracture has no such problem. Also, per shot, Ravens definitely do more damage, though of course rate of fire and magazine size are likely pre-balanced with that. Not sure what to do about these overall.

I wish there were most posters like you in the BASR vs. NW thread, that's for sure. I probably would have contributed better myself if I had better to work with. It turned into a mud-slinger and is probably dying into page 2 now.

On a side note...

I think it's toxic to assume one's opinions are automatically worthless entirely based on in-game metrics. If we went strictly on those alone, we'd never have new player tutorials because people that are already "pros" in this game would get the giggles killing fresh people as they are droppodded down. It'd be one of many ways the game bleeds further, because according to the "pros" only the opinions of the "pros" matter. At least those with the arrogance to declare such and think that way.

I see no problems with your scenario . Seriously though, im not sure what you mean by "hard". making a game a series of reflex wars by requiring so many bullets to kill someone is hard to me. Extremely low TTK's, that create a game that demands forethought to be a major contributor to success is fun to me.

I understand what your getting at; that sometimes a nerf is in fact required. however i think your example plays more on preference than power creep. In most cases (>90%) i would argue that a buff is needed, or a simple tweek, before any nerf could be considered. Only thing I could think of off the top of my head that could require a nerf would be the vulcan, and thats only because of its universal nature, and nor because of its actual damage output.

Oh i see what you are trying to do now. I guess either ways would please/displease people so either way would work

Low TTKs can not work in a game such as planetside due to the immense amount of people in one zone. Now take in consideration weapons such as the SMGs, shotguns and all vehicle weapons

Low TTKs can only occur in games such as CoD and to a lesser degree battlefield because there will never be a scenario in those games where you are going to be surrounded by 100players. Lowering TTK in planetside would also result in RoF being superior in almost all cases

Nerfing overpowered weapons is constructive though, I get the fact you might like X but a solution to a overpowered toy is not to make all the other toys overpowered, its to fix the overpowered toy

IamDH, you couldnt be more wrong, with respect of course. BF2 mods like FH2, and PR2 disagree. 128 people in a smaller map with such low TTKs that almost EVERYTHING was a OHK managed to be insanely fun. ARMA series is another good example. I would argue that games such as PS2, in which there is a ton of space and multiple bases would make low TTK's very viable. Its simplistic gameplay, on the other hand would be the downfall.

I have played many FPS's with VERY low TTK's. To me, COD and BF3 had very high TTK's which is why I ONLY played BF3 hardcore servers when i played that gamme.

Again, its all a matter of preferences. You could not imagine having fun in such an environment. I salivate at the idea.

Well i guess its just opinions then.
I'd just like to leave you with this one example:

Imagine throwing 200 people in shipment (CoD) then decreasing the TTK

I must admit however. It is fun but to a certain degree