A simple observation...

[Blade]

I've been looking around the forums for some time now, and every time some discussion comes up about the 'range' of a weapon and what it 'should' be, I've noticed something. It doesn't matter too much to me, just people seem to be a bit inconsistent with their reasoning

Complaint: The AR is OP. Too accurate. I get sniped with it. Insert random complaining thread here.

Argument: *Quotes some source - "The M249 SAW is effective at engaging targets out to 800m, and suppressing targets out to 1km. (I didn't put much thought into remembering distances.)
__________________________________

WHILE IN A COMPLETELY OTHER THREAD
__________________________________

Complaint: The M16A2/4's effective range is 550m, why is it not like this in PR!?

Argument: Well, due to engine limitations, we must tone down the actual ranges to suit the limited view distance of the BF2 engine, etc etc etc.

I'm not really complaining or anything of the nature, just pointing out something I tend to laugh at every now and then.

[LithiumFox]

you must realize that a lot of people tend to base their idea of whats "correct" with what they think is right.

Another thing is that the dev's will never make it 100% correct. Due to limitations in both engine and people being quite ... well... dumb. =/ (Hardcoded)

It is quite hilarious

EDIT: Like the Cloud signature there... =D

[Spec]

Well, this is simply two opinions. A large part of the community seems to think that the ranges should be 1:1 accurate, another large part thinks it should be toned down due to the engine limitations - nothing special of funny in my opinion, it's just normal discussions... Of course we disagree about things here, would be boring if not...

Right now, I think the Dev's made the SAW so accurate simply as a gameplay change. One should fear a machine gun, but it is limited to one per squad. Seems fair enough for me, of course it needs fine tuning.

[wookimonsta]

i like the AR,
it has changed infantry combat substantially. causing more people looking for cover, more flanking maneuvers to get away from the AR

[flem615]

In perfect world we would all be dead.

Dead on. (pun)

[Alex6714]

I see alot of this, but imo more important than realistic range or toned down range is proportional range. Ideally with a view distance of 1500-2500m, which is possible on most maps without to much of a problem from my experience.

Ie, a sabot shell shouldn´t be outranging a hellfire, a stinger shouldn´t be outranging a hellfire, and hellfire shouldn´t be outranging an AIM120, rifleman a sniper etc.

Almost no BF2 mod has this atm, they just let the projectiles reach the view distance for everything, therefore tipping the balance on things by giving everything the same range. Ballistics would help here too.

[flem615]

thats true, but i think it should only apply to projectiles that arent bullets. rockets, tank shells, and the like. i think that all bullets, besides sniper rifles, should have roughly the same range, going out to the view distance. adding a maximum range for your average rifle in a video game causes lots of problems and requires actual in game training on firing the weapon. this is something i know most PR players will not do, and this will create more noobs, and make the noobs even noobier. (shudder)
besides that, i think there does need to be some sort of range for weapons like the AT-4, and tank shells. those are specialized weapons that do require training to know how to use them properly.

[spawncaptain]

Almost no BF2 mod has this atm, they just let the projectiles reach the view distance for everything, therefore tipping the balance on things by giving everything the same range. Ballistics would help here too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you CA guys stopped the implementation of realistic ballistics? I think someone mentionend that on the CA forums.