Viability of Ranged Combat

Whats the point of large environments if all of the infantry weapons in the game are designed to force close combat? At < 10m gun battles are decided in 0 to 0.5 seconds. At 100m, it takes 9 hits to kill from most weapons. On top of that, the cone of fire on even the most accurate ARs is so large that without any bloom at all and no recoil, its unlikely to land all 9 shots in a row on a stationary target.

Ranged combat is so ineffective that players opt for short ranged loadouts knowing that they can close the range or find cover before someone with a longer range load out can kill them.

I think the game would be much more interesting if ranged combat became viable. To clarify, I mean if falloff ranges were changed to start at 85m and end around 150-200m depending on the weapon, and base accuracy were increased. I'd like to hear the thoughts of the community on this.

Actually it's sort of the opposite really. Carbines, Assault Rifles, and Light Machine Guns all have the same ranged effectiveness, no one is obviously better than the other. TBH SMGs are kinda the same way too. Guns should have more specialized functions than they do. TR and NC need to have one step more bullet drop and Carbines and SMGs need to have severely increased bullet damage dropoff compared to what they have now.

I think you missed the point. The point is that all weapons are ineffective at range. The fact that only 10m separates a "medium range" carbine from a "long range" AR is a different issue entirely. Though its an issue that would benefit from a larger spread of effective ranges to help differentiate between the weapons/classes/factions.

I think ranged combat is perfectly fine the way it is. Of course close range battles are going to end quickly. Also I don't really want to get three shot from 150m in .5 seconds and have no idea where it came from nor have any opportunity to retaliate.

Buff battle rifles. They are meant to be the middle ground between snipers and automatic firearms but they're total trash.

I agree, but I don't see how they can without rebalancing everything.. I recently unlocked the KSR-35, which is a low zoom optic semi-auto sniper rifle. Its exactly how I feel the battle rifles should be. But if they make the BR equivalent to the semi sniper rifles, what purpose would the semi sniper rifles serve? They'd have to change them too, then the bolts, and pretty much everything else. Thus the purpose of this thread.

IMO PS2 heavily favors spray and spam- there are no comparable semi-automatic options in the various weapon classes that are competitive in terms of DPS at range. Even the highest damage per shot weapons are such that they necessitate firing so many rounds that semi-auto is relatively worthless and with the tracer effects you just end up painting a big "shoot here" arrow back at yourself.

It is a preference I suppose- I see a lot of players who want long TTKs and argue longer TTK results in skill having a greater impact on outcomes. Personally, I disagree and feel that longer TTK results in more advantage to spray and spam and less advantage to good positioning and few accurate well placed shots- though I can understand the argument that longer TTK means you have to land more shots and therefore be more reliable with placement. IMO, longer TTK often means that getting good position and taking careful aim on a target is rewarded by watching them have plenty of time to take cover, pop a medkit, Q spot, return spray in an attempt to induce flinch, wait for nearby allies to spot your tracers and take you out, or some combination thereof. I know this is a team oriented game but IMO that should not mean there is so little reward for good positioning and patient shot placement outside of a sniper role.

Still, regardless of TTK I would prefer a weapon that has comparable DPS to the automatics while being semi-auto with a high enough damage per shot and slow enough rate of fire that it matters when you hit someone even with 1 shot- no not OHK but not a tickle either. Currently we only have sniper rifles and slug shotguns that attempt to fill this role and IMO that is a shame.

I certainly agree that the game is heavily focused on short range combat and weapon effectiveness does drop off fairly quickly. I still have some success using the zero cof first shot on an AC-X11 and also can get longer range kills on occasion with a SABR-13 or battle rifle.

As for whether the game would be more interesting if ranged combat were more viable, two months ago I would have thought yes, now I've adapted and don't care so much. There is definitely a lot of room to spread the effective range of the various weapons out.

Engaging a target over 100m away with anything short of a semi-auto sniper rifle is mostly a waste of ammo, yes. These weapons are optimized to engage targets at 80m max. Beyond that, scopes and single shot. I figure if I can hide the target behind the front post of my iron-sight, they're too damn far to bother shooting at with my current weapon.

The short range focus is incidentally the reason why I put IRNV scope on everything. If it doesn't show up (with high graphics, mind), it's too far to shoot (or a damn cloaked infiltrator in my face!).

Just bought the Reaper DMR today, I'll see if I can feel any difference for long range combat.

They dont have to bring BR's up to semi sniper standards, the semi snipers should always deal more damage. If it was up to me to fix the BR's though I would increase the projectile speed, rate of fire (slightly) and slightly reduce the recoil without touching the damage at all. Right now the BR's give you no major advantage over a carbine, AR or LMG with a 4x optic used in semi auto mode.

And lo, the spectre of low TTK raises it's ugly head yet again.

I agree with you OP, but how much scope does the game provide for actually doing this? Personally, I'd like to see infantry on infantry TTK go up a little bit...not to PS1 standards, but more than we have. Headshots will balance out the health pools so skill will still triumph, but long range spam with CQB weapons stops being viable. My engie used a laser-equipped Lynx with a 3.4x at range to great effect, that shouldn't be happening.

The problem with the low TTK we have now is ROF is king, and there leaves little room for variety. It's a pity, because SOE are demonstrating a lack of creative ways around this problem. Not their fault, this problem afflicts all low TTK games, but most have bigger budgets.

I have to agree, I have given up long range shooting other then with my Prowler. I might get a few lucky kills on some guy with my TMG-50 but it's far more effective to run up him and shoot him in the face with my Shotgun.

Other then that, the rending distance in this game is crap.

If we look at BFBC2 or BF3, these are prefect examples where you have small, medium and long range fire fights and all the weapons are nicely balanced.

What ranged combat are you hoping to find? Open field or base to base firefights? Well every weapon except sniper rifles is rather pointless in those, now isn't it? And since anyone can be a sniper it sort of invalidates any reason to carry another weapon into a long range fight. ARs/LMGs/Carbines are fine for Close/Short/Medium, but are wholly outclassed by snipers at long range and that's kind of the nature of those weapons.

I'd like to see engagements between 80-200m. It doesn't really matter where.. As it plays out now, anything that starts at that range quickly turns into CQB as the attackers sprint in the open to close the range, knowing that the defenders won't be able to kill them before they either reach cover or close the range. And there's plenty of room to keep sniper rifles the most effective at range while buffing ranged effectiveness of other weapons.

As a medic specialized in ranged combat I gotta say AR which are supposed to be accurate and made for these kind of fights are garbage. The true ideal range for ARs is somewhere between 30 and 70 meters. More than that and your wasting time especially with a scope. The recoil becomes really exaggerated.

ARS should really shine in long range and it's not the case.

Actually most modern ARs are effective out to around 300 meters, and the ideal range is around 100, so yes, our weapons should be more viable at range.

The Gauss SAW for instance takes 2 head shots and 1 center mass shot to kill at any distance. The Reaper DMR is pretty much the same story.
That makes 5 center mass hits since head shots count as double damage. It takes probably around 1,5-2,0 seconds to fire the 3 shots at max semi-auto RoF that allows the gun to go back after recoil. Learning to double tap shortens the TTK to 1,5 sec max at ranges where the second shot can get placed reliably.
Both are dead accurate when firing single shots- zero cone of fire.

The EM6 requires 3 head shots and 1 body shot to kill at long distance (or 3 head shots at closer range). The Gauss Rifle seems to have the same ballistics.
That makes 7 shots without head hitting, but both are accurate enough to score one or two head shots.
Cone of fire is insignificant, at least not at around 100 meters and it's still possible to land head shots on the target with the proper scope.
At 150 I'd go for center mass though, or just take the SAW with the 4x LX scope.

Carbines? The GD-7F does take 9 shots beginning with 65 meters, but it's one of the weaker NC weapons (if not the weakest in damage per shot), the strongest carbine takes 7 rounds for a kill, but it's a mini-Gauss SAW that recoils quite a bit.
At 100-150 meters these are at quite a disadvantage- the 7F, while accurate, still needs to be fired in 1-3 shots at a time, and the default Mercenary jumps around a bit too much for 3 shots as well.

Some is based on personal experience, some on VR training and testing, some based on the numbers here:
http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Category:New_Conglomerate

And let's not forget about the bullet velocities.

I have to lead targets who are 50m away. Just a bit ridiculous if you ask me.

I carried an LMG in the military and it had a effective range of 800m, 1500 with a tripod, and these where produced in the 1950s.