End the N-TEC Standard of Balance

[foolish ninja 59]

1 minute ago, Noob_Guardian said:

Yeah i do, however they also made shotguns and smg's TTK's slightly faster than .70 as well. Unless you mean that NTEC, FAR, Frenzy, etc should have a .75ttk same as star

most CQB  are around 0,6-0.7 secs TTK (there are some excepctions). And if all ARs would have 0,75 TTK, It wouldnt make much difference. Sacrificing 0,05 secs of TTK for gaining +20m range is completely out of questions.

[Noob_Guardian 418]

35 minutes ago, foolish ninja said:

41 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

Yeah i do, however they also made shotguns and smg's TTK's slightly faster than .70 as well. Unless you mean that NTEC, FAR, Frenzy, etc should have a .75ttk same as star

most CQB  are around 0,6-0.7 secs TTK (there are some excepctions). And if all ARs would have 0,75 TTK, It wouldnt make much difference. Sacrificing 0,05 secs of TTK for gaining +20m range is completely out of questions.

no one was suggesting to add that much range to anything.

[Revoluzzer 274]

8 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

8 hours ago, foolish ninja said:

ARs shouldnt even have the same TTK as any CQB weapon in the first place. They should have slower TTK but longer range, which balances it out. SMGs have shorter TTK but have to sacrifice range. Balance, you know.

Yeah i do, however they also made shotguns and smg's TTK's slightly faster than .70 as well. Unless you mean that NTEC, FAR, Frenzy, etc should have a .75ttk same as star

That's just one of many failures on Gamersfirst's part. Realtime Worlds seemed to have a pretty clear vision how to constrain weapons to their niche. By TTK for CQC and effective range on the other end. With a minimum TTK of 0.7 for all original weapons (iirc) they also ensured fights weren't over too quickly. (The only outlier originally was quickswitching from HVR to sidearm, which they fixed eventually.)

Introducing weapons with a lower TTK and watering down the effecive range limitation (i.e. all weapons can deal damage at 100m, no matter how miniscule) caused a plethora of gameplay issues. Heck, the districts were built around the idea that many weapons simply can not deal damage beyond a certain range, thus allowing players to move across large open spaces without having to fear assault rifles, for example.

As a baseline, all assault rifles should have a 0.75s TTK, with 0.70s being strictly a CQC weapon attribute. Rifles sit between 0.80 and 0.90s, snipers beyond 1.00s. Although it would probably make more sense to look at effective range instead of weapon class when considering TTK. Because the ATAC is an assault rifle intended for CQC and the SR15 is a rifle intended for medium range.
00-30m --> 0.70s
30-50m --> 0.75s
50-80m --> 0.80-0.90s
80-100m --> 1.00s+

[vsb 6171]

7 hours ago, Revoluzzer said:

That's just one of many failures on Gamersfirst's part. Realtime Worlds seemed to have a pretty clear vision how to constrain weapons to their niche. By TTK for CQC and effective range on the other end. With a minimum TTK of 0.7 for all original weapons (iirc) they also ensured fights weren't over too quickly. (The only outlier originally was quickswitching from HVR to sidearm, which they fixed eventually.)

Introducing weapons with a lower TTK and watering down the effecive range limitation (i.e. all weapons can deal damage at 100m, no matter how miniscule) caused a plethora of gameplay issues. Heck, the districts were built around the idea that many weapons simply can not deal damage beyond a certain range, thus allowing players to move across large open spaces without having to fear assault rifles, for example.

As a baseline, all assault rifles should have a 0.75s TTK, with 0.70s being strictly a CQC weapon attribute. Rifles sit between 0.80 and 0.90s, snipers beyond 1.00s. Although it would probably make more sense to look at effective range instead of weapon class when considering TTK. Because the ATAC is an assault rifle intended for CQC and the SR15 is a rifle intended for medium range.
00-30m --> 0.70s
30-50m --> 0.75s
50-80m --> 0.80-0.90s
80-100m --> 1.00s+

would LMGs keep their current ttks with this new system? i think the shaw/euryale would be .6s-.65s and the alig would remain .72s - .72s would actually be a decent ttk for some of the "hybrid" weapons 

[Noob_Guardian 418]

12 hours ago, Revoluzzer said:

That's just one of many failures on Gamersfirst's part. Realtime Worlds seemed to have a pretty clear vision how to constrain weapons to their niche. By TTK for CQC and effective range on the other end. With a minimum TTK of 0.7 for all original weapons (iirc) they also ensured fights weren't over too quickly. (The only outlier originally was quickswitching from HVR to sidearm, which they fixed eventually.)

Introducing weapons with a lower TTK and watering down the effecive range limitation (i.e. all weapons can deal damage at 100m, no matter how miniscule) caused a plethora of gameplay issues. Heck, the districts were built around the idea that many weapons simply can not deal damage beyond a certain range, thus allowing players to move across large open spaces without having to fear assault rifles, for example.

As a baseline, all assault rifles should have a 0.75s TTK, with 0.70s being strictly a CQC weapon attribute. Rifles sit between 0.80 and 0.90s, snipers beyond 1.00s. Although it would probably make more sense to look at effective range instead of weapon class when considering TTK. Because the ATAC is an assault rifle intended for CQC and the SR15 is a rifle intended for medium range.
00-30m --> 0.70s
30-50m --> 0.75s
50-80m --> 0.80-0.90s
80-100m --> 1.00s+

You are right that the damage drop did mess up a lot, however it's also nice to have imo. Though I do miss just standing outside of range laughing while the enemy tries hitting me and can't. I think i'll put up a suggestion to make bullets disappear after max damage falloff range "at least" sometime. Won't do much, but would be fine imo. Edited August 17, 2018 by Noob_Guardian

[vsb 6171]

judging by the new otw testing, the ntec is getting some changes

 

[Clandestine 390]

Beware what you wish for. They already broke shotguns while no one even asked them to do it. Soon you gotta get Vegas 4x4 with calabria's HP

[vsb 6171]

Just now, Clandestine said:

Beware what you wish for. They already broke shotguns while no one even asked them to do it. Soon you gotta get Vegas 4x4 with calabria's HP

i’d be perfectly ok with that tbh

[Clandestine 390]

Just now, BXNNXD said:

1 minute ago, Clandestine said:

Beware what you wish for. They already broke shotguns while no one even asked them to do it. Soon you gotta get Vegas 4x4 with calabria's HP

i’d be perfectly ok with that tbh

Yeah I wonder how many people more will l2p from the begining and after 7 years will happily adapt. This game is not motivating me enough anymore to even spend few minutes on spamming the join button.

[Revoluzzer 274]

On 8/17/2018 at 5:51 PM, BXNNXD said:

would LMGs keep their current ttks with this new system? i think the shaw/euryale would be .6s-.65s and the alig would remain .72s - .72s would actually be a decent ttk for some of the "hybrid" weapons 

I wouldn't call it a new system. It's really only what I think Realtime Worlds used as their baseline.

Generally speaking LMGs are a special case, because they are typically support-weapons in video games. This was achieved really well with the original two, imo. The SHAW for suppressive fire works really well (even though few people use suppressive fire in APB) and you can't just bum-rush it because "pffft, it's only a support weapon" will get you mowed down real quick. The high recoil prevents it from killing fast anywhere outside CQC, thankfully. The ALIGs low base accuracy makes it great for targeting vehicles (as intended), but unreliable when targeting people at range (as intended).

My experience with most newer LMGs is lacking, to say the least. The N-SSW / VAS-SW and S1-TIC seem like a poor excuse for adding an assault rifles to LMGs, just so people can progress this role. Don't get me wrong, I like using both of them, but they don't feel like proper LMGs.
The AMG-556 is essentially a more mobile SHAW, right? Why? RTW wouldn't have given the SHAW high mobility and a low TTK. Is the SWARM another one? I don't have one and only trialed it once. If my memory serves correctly, it does basically what the SHAW does, but with a "predictable" recoil pattern.
Some very smart person will now say "duh, it's Light Machine Guns, they don't have to be heavy", but LMGs in APB were introduced as heavy weapons and I think it makes sense to keep this restriction as a baseline for this class. (Also if my understanding of guns is correct, Heavy Machine Guns are those which can not be carried/operated by a single individual.)

[Similarities 226]

50 minutes ago, Revoluzzer said:

(Also if my understanding of guns is correct, Heavy Machine Guns are those which can not be carried/operated by a single individual.)

 

From what I understand the HMG term was pretty much phased out and replaced with autocannon (autocannons are used if it fires >10mm rounds, while <10mm rounds are considered LMGs), however, according to Wikipedia.

Quote

These weapons are designed to provide increased range, penetration and destructive power against vehicles, buildings, aircraft and light fortifications beyond the standard rifle calibers used in medium or general-purpose machine gun, or the intermediate cartridges used in light machine guns. In this sense, the "heavy" aspect of the weapon refers to its superior power and range over light- and medium-caliber weapons, in addition to its weight.