Well I know a lot of this has been said but some of the information these days is barried under mountains of post so I figured I'd bring up a bunch of old questions I cant find to be answered. I warn readers now, a lot of these questions relate to balance in gameplay especially towards VS as I am a VS player. If you have a concern for the TR or NC chime in. Also I do hope the Devs will actually respond to this before any body tries to have the thread forcibly shut down by degrading it into a mud slinging competition. I'll be giving comments and examples after some questions as to better facilitate what i'm getting at in the question. Questions: Are bolt action sniper rifles truely copies of each other and have no differences? 1: Why is it that bolt action sniper rifles never received empire benefits? 2: Why is it that VS MBTs never received no bullet drop as a benefit when the other teams received both of theirs? (TR: Clip size + RoF, NC: Extra armor + Higher damage) 3: In relation to automatic weapons, why is it that higher RoF/ lower damage weapons have better recoil and recoil control while lower RoF/higher damage weapons are the opposite? Wouldn't it make more sense for their respective roles to be the other way around, especially when firing in full auto and/or bursts? (Higher RoF needs better control for distance, lower RoF doesn't but can't compete at close ranges with high RoF) An example would be the Ursa as an LMG being designed to hit farther targets than other LMGs but it actually reliably can't making it weaker in comparison. 4: Why were anti tank grenades designed to bounce? When you look at any type of anti tank explosive in history most were designed to stick to the vehicle when thrown. 5: Why was the VS given no bullet drop as an empire benefit when it is rarely seen in play as an advantage that can be used purposefully? The TR and NC get a bonus that is placed on every infantry weapon that gives them a small edge in infantry on infantry battles as does the VS but how practical is no bullet drop? TR gets fire rate which helps in close to medium engagements by allowing you to put more bullets in you target before they can return the same to you giving a DPS . The NC get a bit of extra damage rewarding markmanskills by allowing headshots to be even deadlier and allows for a slightly higher DPS (DPS is comparitive to VS). the Vanu get no bullet drop which in turn gives an advantage at extremely long ranges but doesn't help with anything else. So unless VS soldiers are always fighting at a distance it isn't much use. This concept doesn't work very well considering bullet drop on most infantry weapons at their intended ranges isn't seen, regardless of any weapon (excluding sniper rifles). Even if you try and use say an LMG or Carbine or even pistol...at a distance the recoil prevents you from firing any faster than a single round per click. 6: Was it intentional that the Max suites function differently than what the Intel Brief on their AI capabilities stated? http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/intel-brief-anti-infantry-max-02-14-2013.94185/ It states that VS max suites have higher accuracy than the rest allowing for them to hit targets at greater distances but in reality this isn't the case. Even with Blueshifts equipped as a VS the TR stock max AI weapon the Heavy Cycler is more accurate fully firing while moving and standing still, don't get me started on Mercys. Most players have recognized this as fact and it seems a little unfair in terms of balancing Maxes against one another, against other infantry and to their performance. 7: Why do TR infantry receive two empire benefits on weapons when NC and VS don't? TR infantry weapons have slighly higher RoF and a larger clip while NC only get their damage buff at the cost of RoF on most stock guns and VS only get no bullet drop at the cost of higher dmg decay at range. Shouldn't the TR have received some form of negative like slightly lower damage? (Not arguing for TR to get nerfed, i'm just curious at the moment.)
