So, I think that this was in response to me asking for the FAL damage to be rationalised and brought on par with other weapons in it's caliber, since the FAL essentially acts as a pocket sniper by one shotting light armour (while every other gun at or near its caliber takes 2 shots).
A few points need to be made:-
- Light armor exists and needs to be viable. Having every caliber one shot light armour would make the light armour useless.
- The FAL is part of the most common pool of weapons and thus very widely available. It therefore has a much greater impact on the utility of light armour when compared to, say the SVD or moisin.
- The FAL literally has a better damage profile than any other primary weapon available to the rifleman/observer/commander/demolitions class. Nothing else within their pool of weapons can one shot through light armour.
- The FAL's muzzle velocity already acts as a pretty substantial buff for the weapon, even without the additional damage. Add to this the greater RoF and faster reloads than it's supposed alternative (the G3) and it's just an all round better weapon.
- If indeed the muzzle velocity can not be deviated from, there's also variants of the FAL with lower muzzle velocities which could be used instead.
The viability of light armor itself is less an issue of light armour not doing much and more an issue of no armour doing too much. The shots to kill for light armour (apart from the FAL) are fine, but what isn't fine is that no armour gives nearly equivalent performance and allows the player to not be killed in a single shot. As pointed out elsewhere in the forums, running around unarmoured need to be penalised more, and should be a one shot kill from just about all weapons.
@MaxedOutMelon A shot without armour, sure. But in this case, the rifle is one shotting armoured enemies while it's counterparts can not. It's acceptable for an AKM to one shot an unarmoured person, but the same should not be true for a person wearing armour (even light armour).
This is especially relevant here since the FAL is not only one shotting light armour, it's doing so while the other rifles in it's caliber clearly do not. It's a discrepancy, and one which is not particularly good for the balance between the rifles which fire the exact same cartridge.
The problem with the FAL as it stands is that it's a 1 shot kill on light armour while other weapons in the general pool (available to the Demo, Rifleman, Commander and Observer classes) in and around its caliber are all 2 shot kills (this seems to be the only AR/BR within the general weapons pool to be able to do so). While I understand that this may be due to its higher muzzle velocity, it creates a problem in terms of gameplay since it elevates the FAL above its peers (such as the G3) by virtue of its damage and makes it a superior choice to what should be its alternative.
This creates a problem within the Battle Rifle category, since the G3 and FAL are no longer alternatives, the FAL does appreciably more damage. Furthermore, in the present case, the greater muzzle velocity is already a buff in and of itself without adding in greater damage on top due to lesser travel time and a greater hitscan range.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that the FAL's damage profile be rationalised by bringing it in line with other battle rifles in its caliber such as the G3 and SCAR H. This would allow the G3 and FAL to remain viable alternatives of each other instead of inordinately elevating the FAL by virtue of better damage.
Well, I do agree that the field of vision for anything inside a technical MG should be extremely restricted. For the bot, this could be 60-70 degrees since that's about how much you can actually see from within that cupola. Additionally, I also think that the traverse rate of the turret should be a smidge lower.
This would make the technical a less dominant unit for the AI and make its proper use more desirable for the player (using spotter-gunner teams instead of soloing it).
Alright, let's get one thing straight. Regardless of the cap speed bonus, the observer's only actual role in a team is to ensure they they're covering the commander and available to call in a strike whenever that's required. The commander's role on the other hand is certainly not to cajole or convince the observers, it's to ensure that the team is somewhat coordinated and provide them with supports. An observer that isn't available or extremely close at hand when the commander needs to call in a support or communicate with the team is in no way helping the team: no matter what his skill with the gun, he's only dragging the team down and being a massive liability.
If you're great at clearing points or want to focus on capping, the rifleman and breacher classes exist and are focused on that exact playstyle. If you play as observer and ignore the commander, you're a double liability to the entire team, because you're both failing your own role and preventing the commander from effectively fulfilling his own role.
And yes, while the cap speed bonus does create a perverse incentive for the observer, and should in all likelihood be reallocated or only be given in the presence of the commander, it's not the main purpose of the observer and certainly not an excuse for ignoring the role. That's also the reason you can't remove the radio from your back, since the use of that radio and supporting the commander is the raison d'etre of the observer.
Might I suggest a solution. Instead of having random headshots, which can be quite jarring for the player, instead have the bots aim in a more generalised manner, with accuracy going down or up depending on the weapon they're using. This way, the bots aren't insanely good marksmen while at the same time being much fairer as opponents for the player.
There's other ways to improve the challenge posed by bots, such as making them use beaten zones and 'dig in' when defending, or making them focus more on suppressing the player when attacking instead of running around trying to use their MGs like rifles. This is certainly possible, since AI from DoI apparelty did all this.
This way, the boys feel fairer and more fun as opponents, while also being a more satisfying challenge due to better tactics on their part, which also forces players to actually use better tactics of their own, such as calling in smoke and flashing points before entering them.
I think that the distinction between the FAL and the G3, especially in co-op is largely down to personal taste. While you may prefer the slightly higher rate of fire and sights of the FAL, others prefer the much more open ironsights of the G3 along with it's much more controllable fire rate. I agree that there are some inconsistencies with the damage and perhaps the FAL could stand to be brought down to a 2 shot kill or the G3 brought up to a 1 shot kill (on light armour, since they're both 2 shot kills on heavy armour IIRC; though honestly, light armour needs some buffs while unarmoured should be a 1 shot kill from absolutely any weapon) since they fire the exact same cartridge.
I think that you may be confusing the audio with the fire rate of the weapon; they are 2 different things, and the audio is not a very reliable indicator of the actual rate of fire of the weapon in question. The G3 has a rather appreciable rate of fire while also being more controllable in sustained or burst fire, making it a much more useful weapon depending on how you use it (for example, I use it to lay down short accurate bursts of fire at range instead of relying on single shots).
While modern infantry combat is definitely not a spraying match, especially between 2 well trained forces, it is also not a marksmanship competition based around accurate single shots. Single shot accuracy, except for the marksman role, isn't all that important when compared to somewhat accurate bursts and suppression from both the MG and the automatic weapons of the soldiers. This at least is accurate in the game as well, since what we generally see are bursts of automatic fire instead of lining up single shots or spraying and praying.
It should also be noted that the forces in the game aren't exactly well trained. One side are soldiers of any random country (could be conscripts, could be militia, why knows?) and the other side are insurgents. The game itself is set in and based heavily on existing middle eastern conflicts. So it's also doubtful whether either side is well trained.
While I completely agree that running unarmoured should merit a 1 shot kill from any weapon, I do not think that that should be the case for light or heavy armour; heavy armour is fine right now, but light armour is so weak as to be pointless and is really in need of buffs.
One also has to account for the fact that Sandstorm tries for a much larger appeal than DoI and thus needs to cater to a larger and more diverse playerbase. As for the idea of stronghold; I think that it might be better off as a separate optional game mode rather than as a replacement for the current objective mode (which, while definitely having scope for improvement, is certainly not a lost cause).
The difference between the G3 and the FAL comes from the fact that the G3 has a lower Rate of Fire, which makes it much more controllable in sustained fire than the FAL, whose recoil combined with the higher rate of fire makes it much harder to control during sustained fire. Otherwise, the G3 is simply the german H&K answer to the standard issue Belgian FAL. Furthermore, last I checked, the G3 is a one hit kill just like the FAL, and not a 2 hit kill as claimed.
One basic incorrect presumption that I think underlies this is the idea that modern infantry combat is about marksmanship and that good single shot aim is a paramount skill. This is patently not the case; it's the reason militaries have abandoned semi automatic rifles and battle rifles in favour of full auto and burst firing rifles chambered in intermediate calibers (such as the ubiquitous 5.56mm). That meta of recoil management is very much in keeping with the setting of the game and the principles of modern infantry combat. The idea of individual marksmanship being a deciding factor in infantry engagements died out with the advent of automatic weapons,and only really lingered (unsuccessfully, I might add) in armies like the PLA, and even there was found to be inadequate and quickly replaced by the modern doctrine of using suppression and automatic fire.
To be clear about the previous statement that I made; my point was that we no longer have inhuman laser guided aimbots for enemies, which is a good thing overall. This does not mean that the lethality is toned down, simply that it is rationalised and made more human like, something that is a new improvement to the game in my opinion.
The reason that the game has a rushing problem is because the AI fails to hunker down and take up overwatch positions using their MGs on any point. And while I think that a continuous repition of even this would be boring, it would be nice for the AI to do so every few points in order to vary up the gameplay and keep an element of surprise within the gameplay (you never know when the AI has hunkered down and when they're positioned elsewhere). The other reason for the problem is how points are allocated on the basis of individual play, especially on cache destruction points; everyone wants to get points by throwing their incendiary on the point and rushes to do so (thereby creating a perverse incentive to rush and not work as a team).
The simple solutions to this are as follows:-
- Making the AI actually take up overwatch positions with MGs and snipers every once in a while and actively try to suppress the players.
- Heavily restricting the availability of incendiaries (such as limiting them to the Demolitions class).
- Reworking how points are awarded to put a greater emphasis on team play over individual glorification (for example, by allocating points for cache destruction to the whole team).
Playing as a commander, I've far too often found myself straddled with observers who are utterly useless at their jobs and instead prefer to play the role of rifleman. Such observers are a detriment to the whole team, since they not only prevent the commander from doing their job, but also block off the observer role which would otherwise have been occupied by more capable and cooperative observers.
My suggestion is simple, please allow commanders the ability to remove observers if they find them unhelpful. A removed observer would immediately (or at the next objective) vacate the observer slot and be prevented from reoccupying the role for the remainder for the match. This would allow the role to be filled by more cooperative and useful observers instead of being hogged by people who have no intention of actually being useful within that role.
Similarly, please also allow commanders to commend especially useful observers after the match as a way of appreciating those who do well within the role and are a net asset to the commander.
While I do disagree with a lot of what has been said here, especially with regard to the supposed superiority of the FAL and the necessity of a lethality meta, there a number of great ideas here, such as having the AI use beaten zones and attempt to actively suppress the player's advance.
Let's begin with the parts I disagree the most with.
- There isn't, to the best of my knowledge, any sort of FAL meta in the game. The gun has a good rate of fire and kills in one shot, but that's about the sum of it's virtues, since it also comes with high recoil. Compare this to the far more controllable G3, or the much more versatile G36 or M4, or even the M16 and AK variants; each gun has its own advantages and disadvantages, and not all are good for all situations.
- I have to disagree about the lack of lethality. Bots are a bit less laser guided killing machines, true, but I think that this is a good thing since the game isn't just catering to the ultra hardcore. At the same time, sitting out in the open is generally death sentence, since once you're spotted, the enemy tend to zero in their fire on you pretty quickly.
- While it is true that commander and observer are similar to the rifleman, it must also be noted that observer has to carry the weight of the radio while the commander has the unenviable task of constantly communicating with and supporting the rest of the team, especially since the supports are now much more varied and lethal. Riflemen also have access to the foregrip bipod, which allows them to lay down suppressive fire with much greater ease.
Now, let's talk about the stuff I really agree with.
- I agree that AI should take up covering positions and do more to suppress the players. This makes the use of teamwork, specialists and equipment a much more necessary and rewarding aspect of gameplay.
- I would go so far as to suggest that more technical spawns could also be added to really make the defensive points more challenging.
- I think that instead of replacing checkpoint, stronghold could be added in as a different mode for co-op.
All of this I think would make the game much more rewarding and put more emphasis on teamwork rather than the mad rushes that seem all too common now.
Additionally, I would like to suggest 2 more changes that can perhaps be implemented much more easily.
- Restricting incendiaries to demolitions, or making them ineffective against caches.
- Giving the reward for cache destruction objectives to the entire team instead of just the person who inflicted the damage. And in general rewarding points more on the basis of performance as a team rather than as an individual.
The reason for suggesting these changes is that a large part of the rushing is due to players seeking to earn the maximum points by using incendiaries to blow up caches, or using them as a cheap (and ineffective) substitute to actually covering a sector (instead flitting about like a mad moth, getting in everyone else's lines of fire). The overall effect of the abundance of incendiaries has been largely negative, and I think that now, with the ability to plant bombs on caches, incendiaries need not be so readily available.