The devs have said they want to fix range compression in infantry weaponry...

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by WalrusJones, Apr 19, 2013.

  1. WalrusJones

    Well, the thing is.
    Game design.

    The reason there is brainstorming, the reason all of this is happening, is to address the issues responsible for the issue of infantry ranged combat taking place over such a small range of ranges.

    The change that is most developed has some flaws, in brainstorming, we have found and layed out as many as many possible solutions as we possibly can.

    If our feared issues arise, just like a nuclear reactor hitting critical levels, we can slam down the control rods, as we predicted the feared issues, and had prepared a backup just in case.





    All of the countermeasures exist because of the fact that there may be issues, and they would only be implemented if we were correct in assuming that the issues would exist.
    - If your problem arises, then it can be solved with X.
    - If your problem was hot air, then solution X has no need to be implemented.
  2. GimpyGotcha

    I would tend to agree. But only Most weapons like mg's/ar's ect NOT shotgunsk smg's. Just makes sense.

    I mean I cannot tell you how often (I'd guess 15-20+ times an HOUR, at min) I see a guy, honestly not too far away, running away from me that I could shoot. But I hold my fire knowing that no matter what I wont be able to 1) kill him 2) wound his health. So in effect all shooting him would do is give my position away, let him know he's been spotted, allow him to get behind a box/wall regen shields then turn to attack me at close range as I move in. Giving me, esp as tr, an extreme disadvantage once I get closer. So in all those cases I have to keep chasing him down and hope, nobody kills him before I can finally catch up, he stops to aim at someone giving me time to get into super close range, or just give up on it.

    That Is Just Wrong. In any other game when someone is at that distance I should be able to open fire without having to worry about such things and in effect screwing myself over by doing so. Please SoE this NEEDS to be addressed it is a Serious Game Flaw.
    • Up x 2
  3. Ninjivitis

    Please excuse my bluntness. This thread is a load of crap. Ranged combat works fine if you use the right weapon, aim properly and use proper burst fire and recoil control. The ONLY thing holding back ranged combat is mouse acceleration and sensitivity aiming issues. Even still, kills are pretty easy to get, you can still wound people from a distance, and a wound is a death sentence in many cases.

    There are many flaws with the idea of making health larger and shields smaller which have already been pointed out in this thread. It really is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
  4. Aegie

    1 weapon- the sniper rifle (maybe maybe shotguns with slugs).

    I have to disagree- I have no problem landing hits at long range, it is just that those hits take (a) a long time to get there so they are difficult to place and easy to dode and (b) when they do get there they will often do 1/2 the damage, so little that the target either has to be really really far away from cover or AFK not to have time to notice where the fire is coming from, find cover, pop a medkit, Q spot, or some combination thereof.

    Like another poster has said, it is sad how many times you see someone and you know you could hit them easily with 5-7 shots but you also know that at that distance it will take at least 10-14 to kill them (if they do not have a medkit handy) and it simply is not worth it.
  5. WalrusJones

    If your camp used evidence, I would be happy to debate.

    Unfortunately, All I have seen is hot air, and people citing potential issues that there are solutions drafted and brainstormed to, AKA, long after the issue has long expired.
  6. Ninjivitis

    Why is the burden of evidence on me? Please show me how long range combat is a problem right now. I thought that ever since the render distance fix, long range combat was at a golden age.

    I would love to show you videos of me killing people at mid to long range with my GD-22S (not good at long range), my SAW and my Carnage BR (proper long range), but I play on a laptop and my game messes up when I try to record. I know there are other people out there getting kills at long ranges though since I'm not even that great at aiming nor do I have a high dpi mouse.
  7. WalrusJones

    We don't need a recording to show that fighting at ranges past 150 meters doesn't end well for anyone who isn't using a bolt action, even if they do make hits, without "BAM! You are almost dead" firepower, it doesn't work with strong shields.
  8. Ninjivitis

    Exactly! You need a sniper rifle if you want to shoot that little blue pixel you see on the hill over yonder. The reason you can't hurt him is not because of his shields, it's because he is far away and your bullets will miss their mark. Get a battle rifle that has a better scope so you can get those headshots in before he goes for cover. If you hit enough, he will drop.

    You don't even need a 1 hit kill, I kill fine with the stock TR semi auto sniper at long ranges. Granted, it's hard with a suppressor and bullet drop, but if the enemy gets away it's because of my aim, not their health. If shields were really that influential, I think more people would use the advanced shield capacitor over nanoweave.
  9. WalrusJones

    It more has to do with shield wait times are too long for in-combat shield recharges to be remotely viable.


    Also, People are rather visible at 150 meters, hell, hitting them isn't even that hard...
    Its hitting them 5-9 times.
  10. Ninjivitis

    TR min damages are lower than NC min damages. It goes with the high ROF that you guys have. NC generally do 18 more min damage than TR. That's going to add up to 1 bullet less to kill at range than a TR LMG, maybe more if you somehow get all head shots. 7 bullets NC, 8 bullets TR at ranges over 65 meters. The battle, scout, and sniper rifles are what you need to use if you want to kill people at long ranges. At a long range, high damage is what wins, because ROF doesn't matter when using controlled bursts.

    A battle rifle with 200 min damage kills in 5 bullets not counting head shots. A semi auto scout rifle kills in 4.

    So if you adjusted shields to be 250, and health to be 750, you won't even get more kills at range, it will still be the same. It's still 4 to 8 hits. So you get to wound more, that's cool. But is that change really that crucial? It's hardly going to make people fight more at long range since the kill is what matters, not the wound. This is my point, ranged combat is fine. I kill at range fine with those 4-7 bullets. With the less shields, people with a non-battle rifle or sniper would still advance to ranges where they kill their opponents, not give away their position just so that they can wound.
  11. WalrusJones

    When the guy comes out of cover with half as many hit-points, I will, actually.


    In reality, One game which proves a low shields chipping system makes wearing down an enemy that you couldn't possibly hope to kill in a single engagement viable.... Is one which it doesn't work for.

    Bioshock Infinite now basically proves that this idea works, in practice....... Just not when the character you are playing is supposed to survive/last the entire game.

    However, I found myself thinking that "This would work brilliantly in a team based shooter, where Elizabeth is replaced by say, a teammate who knows what to do, and can open doors.... And these handymen replaced by enemies fairly balanced with me."
    • Up x 1
  12. seamus2008

    Long-range gunfights are always better than run & gun, side strafing, smg-totting CQC. I support anything that encourages long range battles.
  13. Flukeman62

    sounds like a good idea
  14. EvilNinjadude

    Got here from latest patch announce thread.
    OP, y u so good? Especially the first point. It'd also provide incentive to play medic: Most of what I do as medic involves reviving people.

    While I don't have an opinion on the third, I do have a suggestion for the second: Shields have long recharges to make it easier to finish off wounded opponents... especially if those are running away. Make the shield recharge timer tick faster when standing still? A good idea, no?
  15. Rift23

    I highlighted the part where you answer your own question. ;)
  16. Bennybones

    I don't see the problem. I kill people at long distances all the time, and if I'm not it's because either the person is in cover or I'm running around with the wrong weapon. If the target is moving at 150m I would much prefer a TMG 50 or a SAW over a bolt action. Of course, that's just me and I'm not particularly good at this game as my stats page would show you. But genuinely, I don't see the problem. I imagine that these new GU08 updates might even help further by making recoil less of a problem for most weapons with the right attachments.
  17. h00n

    I see what you did there.

    Well, it was stupid in Battlefield, and it's stupid now.
  18. WalrusJones

    The third point is basically a part of GU08.


    Albiet, most medics have agreed that they would be fine loosing revive XP after some drama in this thread.



    On shield recharge: VERY rarely do people not hop in cover at half shields. In reality, extending shield recharges only makes long range combat longer, A shorter shield recharge allows for people to pop out of cover more often (And more then fixes any pain CQC combat would feel from the first change change twice over.)

    We cant just axe off all other ranges to make long range more viable, its a balancing act. In this case, I pulled the vodoo magic that I think would make both close and long range combat slightly more fun, long range having a greater variety of weaponry available, close range having fewer waiting periods.
  19. Singed

    All I see is a buff to medics. Instead maybe buff specifically long ranged weapons in terms of recoil, damage falloff, and modify the amount of recoil is magnified onto a higher resolution scope.
  20. WalrusJones

    Make scopes reduce recoil?

    That has a lot of potential to be overpowered.