[Suggestion] How to Balance Close Range BASRs

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Scroffel5, Dec 8, 2019.

  1. TRspy007

    No need to go full-******, I hope you've played the game at least once to realize there's other stuff than bullets that kill you. I was referring to the various explosives damage a person usually takes when they try to enter a room, combined with infantry fire. The shield helps them cope a little more with the random damage they take when pushing rooms. Removing the heavy assault shield in exchange for some suit slots would ruin the heavy's ability to deal with the unknown.

    I said that the damage resistance to body shots generally doesn't matter, even if the last shot strays to the body, you can't contradict the fact that everyone goes for headshots - except noobs who are unfamiliar with the game. Even landing a shot to the head completely neglects the effects of naoweave.
  2. pnkdth

    Extracting individuals who do exceptionally well in comparison to the majority isn't evidence. Indeed, I have vastly better KDR and SPM with my light assault (13KDR with the GD-7F) and I've even managed to scrape up an avg. KDR of 10.5 with the Jackhammer on the HA. Most of my HA stuff around 5-9 KDR which is lower than both LA/Infil but I have a higher SPM/KPM rate with HA (somewhat similar on the LA with certain weapons).

    Checking KPU and uniques on voidwell there isn't a whole lot which shows CQC BASRs to overperform or be overly represented. CQC BASRs increases in Q4 (high BR players) which makes a lot of sense since this is the time most players will start their Aruaxium medal hunt. In other words, if CQC BASRs were so effective/easy to get into it would have been adopted by the masses a long time ago. We should also see them more clearly outperforming HA weapons since weapon which are 1) in low numbers 2) are mostly used by high BR players performs way better from a statistical standpoint (since there aren't any new players dragging the stats down).

    I am all for a different kind of weaponry for infiltrators though and would love to see more full auto scout rifles and such. Sadly it appears we're past the time when DBG make new weapons for a single class (especially a scout rifle which is more niche than BASRs).
    • Up x 1
  3. Scroffel5

    Honestly I checked KPU between the Gauss Saw and the SAS-R and the differences between Q1 and Q4, and Q1 is pretty close to the Q4 when using the SAS-R, but not so much with the Gauss Saw. That says to me that Q1 can use them easier, if not on par with the Q4.

    Edit: more consistently. They can more consistently be on par with Q4 than if they were using a starter weapon.
  4. pnkdth

    We should consider who is using what and how many because in terms of the number of uniques the SAW (being the default) will have every new player use it (uncerted and extreme variance between actually new to fps to fairly comfortable with fps games). The very low number of uniques of the CQC BASRs, in comparison to other LMGs, suggest a more deliberate choice. The player knows what he or she is getting and even then the Q1 numbers for CQC BASRs is meh.

    The SAW is, however, just one weapon and as soon as you start looking at the most popular/collectively seen as the best LMGs then CQC BASRs look even less impressive and are even more outnumbered by HAs roaming about. In Q4, for examples, the very best of the CQC BASRs (ignoring the random mega extreme spikes in performance as they probably cheaters) lies around the base-line of many popular LMGs.

    In closing, my point is, yes, CQC BASRs are good weapons but why shouldn't they be? We aren't seeing total dominance or exceptional changes in performance. Yes, there are some really good players out there doing well but there are even more of them doing better with HAs (as well as LAs). These weapons belong to a class whose singular purpose in infantry combat and disruption but they can't do them both at the same time. Meanwhile, we're comparing the infil to a class (the HA) who is so flexible and effective it is the primary choice for all but a handful of engagements (and even there you can do pretty damn well with a battle rifle nowadays or medium ranged LMGs).

    For these reasons I do not see why they need a nerf. They already have a 500m/s bullet velocity and going lower than that and we're looking at having to lead with a single bullet in close range engagements. 500m/s also require a lot of leading targets and longer range (especially 150-200 meters away). Removing OHK and increasing chamber time would just mean a worse version of semi-autos and the Daimyo would handle like an unfinished semi-auto. Plus, I do not see it as a negative that HAs find themselves in one situation where they cannot simply activate the shield and carry the day without having to adapt somewhat.
  5. Scroffel5

    I respect your opinion, and I am thankful that you were kind while replying. I wanted to nerf the bullet velocity because CQC BASRs are used in CQC. People typically don't use them to snipe at 150-200 meters away, so reducing the bullet velocity so you have to lead targets in close range while maintaining OHK on headshots means that still targets a piece of cake while moving targets are harder. I don't think e really should remove OHK as that just makes them a semi auto, as you said, and same with increasing chamber time. Thank you for that. As said before, I play Infiltrator. CQC BASRs benefit players like me the most, players who have low FPS and frequent lag spikes, as I only need a single headshot to kill them instead of sustained fire, and my RoF is already reduced thanks to low FPS. I am not against having a weapon that can destroy a Heavy Assault, but it also destroys everyone else. I think a lower muzzle velocity means that people who decide to aim and shoot at you or people who are still targets will still be easier to mop the floor with, but people who are moving aren't. So yeah, they are infantry killing machines, but I think that it should at least be harder to aim for the head.

    I find that Infiltrators are the most competent people, and they fight you on a physical, psychological, and tactical front. Infiltrators know how dangerous another Infiltrator is, and they know that they can't just run up and go ham. Weapons like Scout Rifles require you to get very good with your aim, and so do Sniper Rifles. I just think that if you give someone a sniper rifle that is optimal for close to mid range, but it is still pretty easy to use (no scope sway, still pretty good muzzle velocity, access to 1-4x sights) that they don't necessarily fit into the psychological or tactical combat as much. They just go on a killing spree and die when they die. I'd much rather you still have to fight on a psychological and tactical front, and yes, while you can't literally run up into a choke point and kill everyone with a CQC BASR and yes, while you do have to fight to a tactical degree, it isn't the same as other Infiltrators.

    Thank you for your respectfulness.
  6. Vanguard540

    It took me a long time to relearn how to play CQB BASR, if PS2 removes that from me I'll just play some DayZ standalone where damage and bullets make sense despite perma death.
  7. Vanguard540

    "no delay"
  8. YellowJacketXV

    Just a general BASR question.

    Why do military simulators get to have one shot body kills yet PlanetSide 2 does not? I mean, if you're going to have a one shot kill AT ALL you might as well just go full throttle with it.

    I only ask because at times PS2 feels oddly reminiscent of a milsim game, granted with some crazy features.
  9. iller

    ...until you are made aware of just how easy it to run a LagSwitch or Triggerbot...
  10. Vanguard540

    I'm fine with C4, I'm happy there's something to mind about when you play MAX to stop your push. The problem doesn't come from C4, it comes from the sunderer having to be baby sitted to survive LA. Otherwise a single cobalt sunderer can deal with flying LA easily.
  11. Scroffel5

    Wrong thread, bud.
  12. That_One_Kane_Guy

    It doesn't matter if it's 2000m, the particular nuances of the gun are irrelevant to my response. 200m is not CQC. If he's going to bring up 200m ranges as a part of his response and then attack my reply for discussing those ranges and not close ranges then he's being a disingenuous ***** and I'm going to call him out accordingly.

    Projecting much?
    The only thing you have done is to make the rest of us stupider by proxy reading what passes for logic to you.

    You haven't produced an argument for anyone to deconstruct you incompetent troglodyte.
    Perhaps I should throw around a few numbers that are blatantly incorrect to bolster my argument? Maybe some ad hominem against anyone who plays in a way I dislike? That seems to be more your speed.

    I hope the reasons why game balance should not be dictated by hackers do not need to be explained.
    • Up x 1
  13. Scroffel5

    CQC BASRs are easy to use. That is why I think they should be harder to use while still maintaining the same thing that brings people to the weapon: a close range OHK headshot sniper rifle. Just remove the sight option and give them iron sight only.
  14. That_One_Kane_Guy

    In one corner:
    In the other:
    LA1 Anchor
    We aren't even touching on the Aurax'd LMG stats.
    I'll save you the trouble of starting a new thread: no, LMGs don't need to be nerfed, either.

    CQC Snipers are powerful tools combined with a powerful class ability that make sexy montages on Youtube, but statistically they are still inferior to the mundane solution of More Bullets + More HP. The only one that has the kind of stats to compete with these LMGs is the Daimyo, and even that pales in comparison to the average Battlegoose/GODSAW/Butcher user.
  15. Scroffel5

    What stats are we looking at? KPU? KDR? In those stats, the SAS-R is higher than the NS-15M2 greatly. When you are given cloaking abilities and a CQC OHK on headshot weapon, you can do pretty well per life. I think we just shouldn't have sights, just to make it that much harder to do well with. I am not saying that they shouldn't do well, but it is too easy as is.
  16. That_One_Kane_Guy

    KPU indicates the amount of killing being done with a weapon. KPH tells you how often this killing occurs. Together these figures can give you a decent picture of a weapon's lethality in the hands of a random user, to wit:

    The average LMG user gets more kills than the average CQC bolt-action user and does so more frequently.

    This becomes increasingly apparent the more weapons you look at, with even the default LMGs having quite high numbers despite their stats being diluted with those of new players. Even more telling is the delta between the KPU of Aurax. and non-Aurax. users of the CQC BAs which suggests that the statistics for CQC bolters are disproportionately influenced by a relatively small number of more highly-skilled (or at least more experienced) users. This is not indicative of a weapon system that is easy to use.
    • Up x 1
  17. iller

    Of COURSE it has to be considered. Only a Naive fool leaves the secured verification of their most important "Skill-Checks" up to chance or an automated Memory scanning program. ALL of the most popular Non-Asian competitive games today aside from CSGO, have built in mechanics that leverage human decision making OVER most mechanics that are too easily automated.

    The only reason CSGO is exempt is because there are so many optional solutions for Community servers, Tourney organizers, Modders, and VOLUNTEER Mods to report in order to self-police.

    And the reason Russian/Asian FPS's are exempt is because using cheats is not frowned upon Culturally. They believe that you are cheating yourself if you are not utilizing every tool available to you in order to succeed. But here in the West, the process of Gaming Darwinism has largely driven a massive WEDGE between the oldschool PC style titles, and what is actually popular now. And Planetside Infantry gunplay is decidely LAST DECADE. It's trying to imp CSGO and MW2 without having any of the actual hurdles in place against the sorts of cheating that plagues F2P games.
  18. Scroffel5

    But the KPU is higher from CQC bolt actions. At least that is what I saw when I compared the 2 I mentioned, the SAS-R and NS-15M2. So your statement should be:

    The average LMG user gets less kills than the average CQC bolt-acton user but does so more frequently.

    LMGs are restricted to a class that is used a lot more, too. You find more HAs than Infiltrators, usually. If the lower amount of Infiltrators are getting more kills less frequently than the LMG user, and its obvious why, I'd think that shows that they are pretty good. I just think they are too easy to use. If they were restricted to only ironsight or 1x, then they would be harder to use while keeping the same results. We want them to still be usable, but I think they should require more skill to use. If you can pop someone from 20m in the head while using only iron sights, I think you deserve that kill. The close range sights just make it too easy.
  19. FirePhox

    CQCBSR's are outragerously broken currently and everyone knows it, even wrel. I'll bet you Auraxis that they won't be changed though because the team is too small and lacks the manpower to make any large-scale balance changes.
  20. That_One_Kane_Guy

    Lagswitching and trigger-botting have been a thing for over a decade and not having a response to it now illustrates a failure in the studio, not the game. Regardless, drawing equivalence between exploiting easily automated actions and legitimate cheating is the portrait of dishonest debate. Again, this shouldn't have to be explained.

    KPU: Kills-per-User (Average)
    KPH: Kills-per-Hour (Average)
    KPUx: Kills-per-User (only accounts for users who have Aurax'd the weapon)

    EM6 1203 1865 39
    NS15 1201 1749 42
    SVA88 1143 1598 43
    MSWR 1815 3305 37
    LA1 2250 3569 45
    TSAR 1222 3049 36
    SASR 1268 2291 38
    Ghost 1075 2639 37
    Daimyo 656 1711 49

    The LMGs on average kill more people more frequently than CQC bolters.

    The nicest thing you can say about them is that if you split hairs they can rival the stats of some of the LMGs, but overall it isn't a contest.

    The statistics for CQC snipers indicate a relatively small number of highly skilled users who are naturally going to produce higher numbers than those of a larger pool of players, while those of the LMGs are high regardless of the higher number of users and greater number of choices available (there are ~half a dozen NS15 variants), etc.

    If CQC bolts are a problem, they are a piss-poor one at best. The only place this argument can go from here is Fantasy-Land.

Share This Page