Long range weapons seem to be just awful in this game. Short range weapons do their job well. They are strong short range and kill quickly. Long range weapons on the other hand are just not worth it. After recoil and damage drop off they take WAY to long to kill at the ranges they are suppose to be good at. Some times it can take 10+ hits to kill some one and it gives the enemy to much time to get to cover and heal themselves. The small advantage you have at long range is not worth it because every one can simply run away. Obviously this does not include the bolt-action.
I think reducing the CoF on some of the longer ranged weapons would help them to be better at their intended role. There are still some long range weapons in my opinion that do their job well though.
it's all about damage when it comes to long range combat. If you're using a 143 damage weapon you're ******. This is why TR is godawful at long range. CoF, recoil, etc. don't mean ****. Switch to single shot and click like crazy. Godsaw 3 shot kills in like 1/2 a second on a stationary target.
Oh, and the fact that all low magnification sights ( except IR/NV ) are not aligned properly doesn't help either. I find myself using IR/NV on pretty much every weapon lately.
I frequently advocate for the inclusion of weapons with inverse damage models - the damage increases the further the bullet travels - but it never seems to attract any commentators. This is, in a way, in my opinion, a better means of creating a good long range weapon without having to mess with frustrations like a large cone of fire when not ADS to make certain the weapon is not unbalanced in CQC.
I think I once put forth an idea for a sniper rifle that followed this damage model. Would be interesting to at least give it a trial run on the PTS to see how it affects normal gameplay.
Why use an LMG when you have dumbfire rockets for range and can use an SMG or shotgun as a primary? The game's all about CQC, not systematic and strategic advancement anyway. Hit, flip, and move to the next hex, that's the entire game.
kinda agree. high-firerate close-to-midrange weapons are usually superior to average-firerate long-range weapons in PS2. because accuracy+firerate > damage-over-range that's why i actually like BF4's gunplay more: high-firerate weapons are kings in closequarters but have high recoil, which makes them almost unusable beyond midrange. however, low-firerate weapons possess low recoil, which allows them to dominate long-range engagements far better
You do realize the implications of lowering TTK on long range weapons right? People will use them for CQC quite well while dominating mid-range.
Infantry weapons are very well balanced in this game. Long range weapons are supposed to have longer TTK.
Yeah I know what you mean, and I think its this way because of how they decide damage dropoff by the 'type' of weapon instead of the role of the weapon. CQC ARs that only drop 1 damage tier, same as the long range ARs. Maybe the CQC is less accurate but they pump out bullets like nobody's business. It aint going to happen but I've always felt that damage dropoff should have everything to do with the role of the weapon and not the type of the weapon. SMGs are about the only weapon I think they got right when it comes to CQC effectiveness vs ranged effectiveness. Buut they were copying BF3 so this is what we get.
