Ok, first things first, I know having an AMR behave "realistically" in a game would be incredibly OP, and therefore must be decreased in effectiveness against targets which are not part of its primary role. This role, of course, is anti-MAX, and it does a fine job of that. My problem is how terribly ineffective it has been made to be against regular infantry. Here are the possible levels of effectiveness vs. infantry I can think of: 1) Realistic: One shot = dead, doesn't matter where. Of course this would be terrible and not a viable option because of obvious OPness. 2) Bolt-Action Sniper: One headshot = dead. Again, obviously OP because of its power vs MAX units as well. 3) Standard Sniper: One headshot plus another shot anywhere = dead. This is a possibility, but still potentially OP. Infiltrators are much better suited to sniping because of cloak, so any engineer attempting to use this vs infantry with such a long chamber time is going to have a bad day. 4) *Preferred*: Two headshots, any range = dead. This seems like the most reasonable option to me for game balance, despite being a bit far from how an AMR would behave in reality. It would be ineffective enough to discourage use vs infantry, but still allow decent damage on a hit. In fact this seems to be the original plan for the AMR according to this post by BBurness. 5) Current: 2 HS close range, 3 HS long range. This is the current effectiveness vs infantry, and for me the problem is it can take three headshots from a high powered Anti-Materiel Rifle to down a single person at medium to long range. In my opinion, this is too far removed from reality, and honestly a lot of sidearms are on par with this beast of a rifle in close to medium ranges which doesn't make sense at all. The commissioner can oneshot an infiltrator at close range, while the mighty AMR cannot. The simple crossbow also seems to be more effective at medium ranges than the AMR. Dear devs, I know this weapon was probably a pain to balance in the first place, but I think it still needs some tweaking. It just doesn't feel right to have this incredibly powerful rifle do so little damage vs squishy infantry. Just a tiny step back to level 4 would make me and probably a lot of other people happier.
As far as realism goes, I like to just say nanites. Like, nanite shields are really good at blocking a single powerful projectile but get quickly drained by multiple less powerful projectiles. It's not that weird, they built something similar into the lore of personal shielding in Mass Effect. Kind of like the old Dune "the slow blade pierces the shield" stuff. Thinking of it that way makes it not so weird that infantry can catch some fairly heavy munitions with their teeth and shrug it off, but a quick barrage from an SMG tears them down. The AMR really does need a buff versus infantry though. It has the same problem as AA does. It's a deterrent to a single, relatively less common unit. So if you pull an AMR, you rarely get to use it and when you do you're still not likely to get a kill against a smart MAX, only "deter" him. But you completely cripple yourself against everything else, to the point that you can't even participate in the rest of the game. At least with infantry you can just swap it back out for another weapon if you're near a terminal (unlike Skyguards, who have to abandon their vehicle and nanites). It's perfectly fine to trade some effectiveness against one thing for effectiveness against another thing. But it's just not fun to spend the majority of your time waiting for a MAX to enter the equation, plink him once or twice until he gets repairs, and then back to waiting. I wouldn't mind giving these things 1-shot headshots on infantry at close range, so long as that damage drops off quickly (say, within 15m, or about the same range that pump shotguns using slugs get). If it really needs an offset, maybe throw in a small bit of aim error too, just enough so that hitting a MAX is still trivial but headshots on infantry becomes a crapshoot past a certain effective range, let alone two in a row. The idea is that if you're with your squad you can still participate in close range combat versus infantry, but that you don't compete with the anti-infantry sniper rifles at middle range and are totally ineffective against anything but MAX-size or bigger targets at long range.
I believe an appropriate course of action is 1 headshot and 1 bodyshot required instead of 2 headshots.
Wrong, the NS-AM7 Archer is more realistic than you might think. You see, damage from anti-matter comes when it eliminates matter, releasing photons, heat, and radiation. It is extremely effective against MAX units because it burns their armor mercillesly. On the other hand, infantry have shields, which effectively block the low-velocity anti-matter round from reaching the armor, and thus the anti-matter round effectively eliminates only air.
I think the Archer should be made semi-auto with lower damage on MAXes. Right now it does an amazing job at taking out MAXes, but it performs very poorly at dealing with everything else, simply because of the chamber time. Instead of being 2 HS or 4-5 body shots make it 3 HS and 6-7 body shots to take down a MAX. Just the fact that you can dump your 5 rounds fast will make it alot more deadly to anything regardless of the amount of hits needed to kill something.
I totally agree on specialization part, that is really a huge drawback. I wouldn't necessarily try to change that though. I'd give it the velocity of the Walker instead and see what happens. The AMR should be able to hit everything, including ESFs for example from greater ranges and more reliably then.
I jsut started using the Archer and I have two-shotted a couple of regular infantry recently - one at medium and the other at long range. I guess they could have been already damaged to some degree...........
... I want to say "good catch" but that's still not how it works. Ah well. Anti-materiel rifle. On the other hand, they probably are just dolled-up anti-tank rifles which, even in 28xx, will still based on WWII technology.
It certainly looks like one and performs like one against MAX units (as intended), but is about as powerful as a peashooter right now vs regular infantry. This sounds like a good alternative as well, I wouldn't mind a sharp damage falloff if it started with 1 headshot kills, though the inaccuracy or very narrow COF when aimed seems like one more variable to tweak just right to maintain balance. Try it out in the VR or with friends, it is a two headshot kill out to medium range, but at long ranges with a 12x, you start needing a third follow-up shot after those two headshots, and eventually three consecutive headshots.
Considering the truly archaic weaponry in this game, a peashooter should be right at home next to the crossbow.
On Reddit there has been recently a long and hot discussion (followed by the devs themeselves) about moving the Archer in the Turret slot. I agree something has to be done, it's definitely a poor poor weapon. We can agree it's meant for ultimate support heroes but let's be honest: that's just other words to say it's pure crap: it fills a too small niche (long range Max fighting), it's not worth giving up a primary weapon.
Well, nevermind then. I did not realize english had a term for weaponry that is supposed to eliminate equipment (materiel), and people seemingly often mix it up when it comes to in-game banter.
Understandable mistake, really. Material is a much more approachable form of homonym, while materiel has become isolated to military applications and commercial distribution.
it has a role of anti-max. it does well at that. its a support weapon. it has a role and it does it, if you want something else use it. you want to kill infantry? pistol or use a regular primary. you want a mini sniper on your engy? use a BR. you want a sniper and anti-max? BR and exbolts on the bow. dont balance the game according to real life. thats frankly quite dumb.
It really is a tragedy that Planetside does not have ragdoll blood&guts physics. Idk why, but I wanna see a weapon that has, like, a 10s chamber time, but just makes players completely explode when they're hit, no matter where. Skadoosh!
I use the Archer all the time. It's one of my favorites... it's really underrated as an AA weapon, too. Great for blasting Skyknights out of the... sky... I have no difficulty using this weapon against infantry. I just shoot them in the head, or chest, and follow up with pistol. I win about half the time- which is really good given the weapon's other traits. Side arms aren't as bad as people make them out to be, if you aren't dumb enough to try to pistol toe to toe against CQC AR/LMG/Carbines... use cover, flank, maneouver. Use that hip fire COF you've got to pop them and jink back around a corner... people honestly think they have to win their firefights in this game with their first engagement. You don't.
