classes = realism, INF =! realism

[mat69]

Most people like of INF that it doesn't come with classes that YOU can choose what you want, but what is the prize?
A weak Minimi, weak scopes, weak nades to name three. If the weapons would be more realistic everyone would run around with scoped weapons or with the Minimi, because those weapons ARE strong. INF is about groups fighting each other, groups contain around 8-12 memebers in general. Each group has at least on MG and the MG is the heart of the group. It is the strongest weapon (so the first target for an enemy) of the group, one MG has around the firepower (depends on the scenario) of an whole group without a MG.
Btw. IIRC only the commander of a group has the M203 in the US Army (not considering Special Units).

Now imagine the MGs would be stronger (suppressive fire would work ...) in INF. Everyone would use one as everyone would use scoped weapons. That's not the target of INF. So I think the developers have to decide for the future if they want a balanced system as it is now - every weapon, I mean ARs and MGs, is the same beside the backdraw and the aiming - or if they want a real system - über weapons but classes.

I don't ask you developers to make a classed base game I just think that you should consider it, that you should maybe test it as mutator or something like that.

 

[gal-z]

What the hell are you talking about? The reason IRL no squad carries lots of MGs is beacause it has many disadvantages, mostly aiming difficulty due to weight and accuracy problems. The reason not everybody carry acogs is because it's kind of a disadvantage in short ranges. And I don't think I even have to explain about snipers...

 

[mat69]

Sorry I didn't explain it properly. I mean that you can't make weapons realistic in INF. If you would try it some weapons could be too strong (like the Minimi or like ACOGs btw. you know there's more than just 4x and in close ranges you don't have the time to aim properly with open sights as well) because you can't add some of the disadvantages and many would run around with those. That's why a class based system would have to be added imo.
I did never write that IRL everybody in a squad runs around with a MG I wrote about the game and then compared it to rl.

 

[})FA|Snake]

but your facts are just wrong, the minime and scopes are both balanced realisticly right now, what is the basis for you claiming these weapons are "weak"

 

[Cap'n Beeb]

I didn't know the ACOG did damage.

 

[Lasersailor184]

Don't forget cost. Some of this stuff is really really expensive. Especially if you're going through 20,000 rounds of ammo per excursion.

 

[Beppo]

what has all your complaining about the weapons to do with a class system???

 

[Nukeproof]

Am I the only one who understood mat's post?

I think he basically said that a class based system (like RO) where usage of certain weapons is very limited (i.e one sniper per team) would require a lot less weapon balancing.

It would allow to include real 'Uber-weapons', like belt fed nade launcher or a semi .50 sniper rifle with 20-mag (like the Barret if I'm not mistaking) without risking everyone having it. (not that I miss those examples)

On the other hand I think, that the steep learning curve (also I don't 100% like everything of the current implementation like the ACOG/Sniper system) of INF is really what keeps up long term motivation. If any 'talented' gamer could switch to INF and master it in a few days/weeks, why stick to it much longer?

 

[gal-z]

A barret or even a belt-fed nade launcher wouldn't really be unbalanced. The barret is really heavy (something in the "teens" ), not to mention the weight of the ammo.
As for belt-fed nade launchers, they're extremely heavy even if you have 3-4 people splitting the parts and ammo. I doubt 3 people would coordinate and share the parts, and even if they would, they wouldn't be able to manuver too well and once they put the nade launcher to 1 piece it would become immobile until taken apart again... Bottom line it won't be effective if put realisticly.

 

[yurch]

I think he basically said that a class based system (like RO) where usage of certain weapons is very limited (i.e one sniper per team) would require a lot less weapon balancing.

It is still no excuse for proper scaling of weapon abilities, as you can see by the rediculously overpowered sniper rifles in most games that use such a class based system.
Just because there are less of them doesn't mean you can or should neglect thier influence.

 

[Beppo]

have to second that...
one guy with a uber weapon (no matter what type of thing) that is able to handle it effectively would be the uber soldier then. Means he can fight against a whole squad alone easily. Only thing that would stop him to do so would be some balancing of his uber weapon cause else you would have two guys - one on each team - that fight the war alone so to speak. A class system doesn't remove balancing issues.

With a very talented sniper for example you can kill a LOT of your enemies and in most games out there you need another talented sniper on the other team to kill him. Now think about class limitations and the fact that on pubs the first one that wants to be a sniper will be it. Means if a noob is trying to be the uber sniper or mg gunner or whatever, then the risk is very high that many will complain about him.

If you look at RO... there aren't any kind of uber weapons implemented. All are balanced somehow too and you always have a way of countering the uber stuff using some nice tactics and maybe a dozen of your reinforcements until one finally kills the uber guy.

Same for DoD for example. You can always do the job without the sniper but with a good guy covering your back you will have not much left to do to fight the enemy. In DoD it happens very very often that people complain about the 'skill' of their snipers or MG gunners cause they think that they can do it better. And most times they are correct. But not many out there are willing to then switch to another class to hand over the sniper rifle or MG to someone that can actually master it. Many noobs choose the snipers or the MG gunners cause it is 'easier' to kill someone in the distance with a scope or by firing a hundred shots into the vage direction.

In addition... many of you guys prefer no respawns... now think about a situation of one sniper or uber weapon user sitting in a fortified location. He will kill dozens of opponents before one can finally take him out. Nice playing... not fun...

DoDs only flaw in terms of unbalanced weapons are the nades btw... they are too overpowered and if you have a match with 10 vs 10 folks then you will encounter 20-40 nades and you die very often due to nades that where bouncing around, dropped by killed folks, or thrown without you noticing it at all due to lag or whatever. Then you get killed by a nade that exploded 30 meters away from you and you sitting behind a pile of debris or even a wall. Some not so heavy nades and this game would be very very balanced, still allowing you to use nades to kick your enemy out of fortified positions.

DoD and RO do use balanced weapons... if you think not, then please tell me exactly what is so unbalanced there.

 

[Nukeproof]

No dissent from my side. I prefer a skill based system without classes myself. I just didn't get why everyone was 'bashing' on mat...

 

[Vega-don]

i love class based systems, with all the flaw it has (beppo post)
it gives more immersion

but in inf , as automatic rifles > sniper rifles and minimi , theire is no interest in that

 

[Lt.]

but in inf , as automatic rifles > sniper rifles and minimi

Ive heard that said before, but im still not sure. I know that i have gone for 6+ matches in a row without getting a single person in my M4A1 sights, then switch to a PSG1, find some highground and...

*bang*​

*bang*​

*bang*​

... my first kills of the evening.

so do we actually have any proof that AR's are more handy or that the sniper/support weapons are underpowered for their purpose? as near as I can tell they are just 'different' and need a different technique to employ.

 

[Vega-don]

from my experience.

this depends of the maps and teamplay too. sure some maps give the sniper rifles an advantage but very few

 

[Lt.]

the map does have alot to do with it,

if you can find a good place to go prone with a nice field of view, a slope to ward off nades and some overhead cover to protect from m203's the minimi can be a fearsome weapon too.

I see where you are coming from tho, an AR doesnt require any of these terrain features to use.

 

[Taque]

Well, I hate to be brutal, but "if this and that and the other thing" then ALL the weapons are fearsome. I think if a team is quite bent on winning, people will naturally fall into their roles - snipers, support, whatever. Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with the 'style' point. I switch it up between all the roles, really (though I lean towards assault and snipie, naturally) and it's just a different mindset.

 

[ANUBIS199]

I also find the AR's to have an advantage over the minimi as well as scoped weapons. The sway and recoil on the minimi are a bit to much, and the sway on the scopes and acogs really ought to match the sway found with Irons (hopefully that means making the scopes sway less, not the irons more). I will admit to being a huge fan of the minimi, so my opinion may be biased (though I honestly don't think so) but I've never liked scopes, so I am sure Im not biased in my beleif that they are too difficult to use.

-Anubis

 

[Beppo]

A well placed minimi can not only be fearsome, it is deadly. A well placed sniper too of course. Some can archive the same with a standard AR, but this highly depends on the maps too as some already said.
In pure CQB ARs can be ok, but MPs and Shotties are most likely easier to handle. But even in this scenario a Minimi can be used to effectively block/fortify a room or area. Even snipers can be used in this scenario if enough 'outside' area is given.
The Minimi is very easy to use if you go to a prone position somewhere and sniper rifles are easy to handle if you keep a full stamina bar and use controlled breathing. And suppressive fire is really something that does work by using the Minimi. Just depends on the fellow behind it.

 

[jayhova]

I really think it's more a question of weapon implimentation for the most part. Sniper weapons for instance have real disadvantages. They are large and heavy. They are scoped. Wait a minute you say, "isn't a scope an advantage?". Not always. Typically if the target is within 200 yards or so the advantage of the scope is gone. Scopes take longer to aquire a target than iron sights or aim points. If you are firing from concealment that's fine but if someone spots you first you're in trouble. One of the other disadvantages is deployment time. If you have to sling your weapon, getting it back out again is not a rapid process. So again, if you have to grab your rifle, shoulder it, then aim it, you are in trouble. The part where sniper weapons shine is if you are a long way off, conceled and prone. In this case you can use placement to make your shots really deadly. MGs also have disadvantages in that if you try to use one in the same manner you would a light assault rifle fatiuge in your arms would quickly degrade your performance. However MGs are great for creating no man's lands to suppress enemy movments.

I think most of these issues are addressable. One of the problems is that weapons that should take less time to deploy actually tame more time than a sniper weapon. For instance it should not take longer to grap aim and fire an mp5 than a RC50 but it does. Speaking of which who exactly draws a sidearm and doesn't aim it at the same time? One of the advantages of a pistol is the speed at which it may be aimed and fired. The only people who shoot from the hip with pistols are in westerns. Let's compare deployment times. For a pistol this is a few 10ths of a second and for a sniper rifle it's at least 4 seconds. The time I'm talking about is the time it takes to grab the weapon, shoulder it, aim it and fire. In close combat this gives the sniper rilfe a distinct disadvantage. The other problem with scopes is that they are more controlable than they would be in real life. This is because in real life scopes just make it easier to see the target. In INF your weapon is suddenly more aimable. That is to say if I move my mouse X distance to rotate my aim 1 degree that distance will go up when I switch to a scope. This means you suddenly gain a free accuracy increase because all your movments are now more controlable.