Rifleman Balancing

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2008-01-06 03:16

SAW needs optics.

Post by **Jaymz** » 2008-01-06 03:33

[R-CON]CAS_117 wrote:SAW needs optics.

Righto, we'll just slap some optics on these *******....oh, wait a minute....

M249SAW = Dice model, cannot be edited.

HK21 = Dice model, cannot be edited.

QBB95 = Dice model, cannot be edited.

quartermaster wrote:I'm sorry, I cannot issue you your SAW optics without a new model for every conventional faction's SAW, k thx bai

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2008-01-06 04:11

I prefer the ironsite rifleman in most circumstanecs.

you can still effectively engage targets from far off (i was killing troops at 200 meters no problem) as well you dont have the negative aspects in CQB, making it a great choice.

when Im SL i let the players decide for themselves, but most go optics. if i have too many optics, ill just ask for one to get a support weapon from the rally, and thats fine.

i like how a squad has alot of choices avaliable and they dont have to be forced to take certain kits (besides medic and officer, those are a must)

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-01-06 05:01

you can still effectively engage targets from far off (i was killing troops at 200 meters no problem) as well you dont have the negative aspects in CQB, making it a great choice.

Thats the way I felt in 0.6 about the medic/engineer. Now I feel like even if I can see someone at that range I'm not going to be able to hit them with irons. I'll go practice.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-06 07:31

It might be a good idea to look at how the guns function in Ironsites vs Scoped and try to model in more of the RL advantages of using the ironsites in combat vs Scoped. There has to be something missing from ironsites. Maybe we can allow them to "site in" quicker or be able to control the recoil a little better and put quicker shots downfield due to not dealing with a scope or something.

I'm FAR from an expect and am just speculating but I've definitely used a lot of ironsites and scopes. Ironsites can be just as accurate and it always seemed easier to shoot much faster with them at a higher rate of fire. We'd go target shooting as kids for ground squirrels and always take two .22's...one scoped and one ironsite. Both were accurate and nice guns but you could definitely put a lot more ammo downfield with pretty good accuracy with the ironsites. The scoped allowed for a more precise shot but I couldn't shoot it as quickly at a running target. Just some old tales but there might be something in there. I don't like nerfing classes a lot to make one class look better....imo I'd MUCH rather increase the effectiveness of the lacking class to bring it "up-to-speed".

I think someone talked about giving remote-detonation-claymores to the Ammo Rifleman. Sounded like a decent idea to me.

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2008-01-06 08:37

I don't think the ammo rifleman was ever meant to be one of those mainstream classes. Rather, players can choose the iron sights out of preference (be it personal or tactical). The ammo bag featured in the kit doesn't really help a whole lot. Normally the only time an ammo rifleman is needed is when you have players using specialized kits like the AT and AA. On average players just don't expend that much ammunition to create a high demand for extra.

I think one of the problems falls on the use of tactics, and how engagements are fought. Basically even with the new deviation (or MOA) changes most of shooting is done in a very precise fashion. You can acquire half-a-dozen kills with a single magazine. This is where suppression fire needs to become more effective. It needs to be the norm, the standard in how firefights are fought. Much more ammunition would be wasted in this regard, and resupply would see a much greater need.

ReaperMAC · Post by **ReaperMAC** » 2008-01-06 09:13

Terranova wrote:I don't think the ammo rifleman was ever meant to be one of those mainstream classes. Rather, players can choose the iron sights out of preference (be it personal or tactical).

That's what I thinking also. I'm fine with the way it is right now, letting players choose based on their preference rather than forcing them to choose one or the other.

Plus there are already kits that specialize in long-range and CQB available for request. (ie Marksman, Spec Ops, etc.) The Rifleman is a mix of both, a good all-rounder. No need to split them IMO.

VipersGhost · Post by **VipersGhost** » 2008-01-06 09:33

I don't seem to need the Ammo guy much for clips as the support gunner has a bag for that. If you had a engy, LAT, AA (inf) or HAT the ammo kit could for SURE be crucial. Seems fine to me though...I like the claymores still

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-01-06 09:46

I tend to try and get guys to pair up. Given that usually, Officer + Medic are a must.

Of the remaining four guys, allow only TWO to take kits that require ammo reloads (HAT, LAT, SAM, possibly engie) and if both those guys take ammo-heavy kits, then the other two take ammo - either Rifleman or Auto Rifleman. The Medic then stays with me, and each ammo guy stays close to his buddy with the heavy kit.

If only one of the guys takes a heavy kit, only one guy needs to take ammo, and the other two are free to take whatever else may be needed - Grenadier, Marksman, another medic etc.

Post by **Drav** » 2008-01-06 11:27

VipersGhost wrote: I don't like nerfing classes a lot to make one class look better....imo I'd MUCH rather increase the effectiveness of the lacking class to bring it "up-to-speed".

I think someone talked about giving remote-detonation-claymores to the Ammo Rifleman. Sounded like a decent idea to me.

Dont agree with your points on ironsights over scopes (well I do, but thats pretty much modelled in the game already by having a small field of view with a scope at close quarters) but ye it seems most people dont want the scoped rifleman nerfed, and I can see the sense in that, and also in the claymore idea, if it ever makes a return.

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2008-01-06 13:37

Why go ammo rifleman?
You only need one ammo carrier for your squad. And the support-kit is basically the same, with a more useful gun. A must in any squad.
Why go scoped rifleman?
The AT rifleman is basically the same, with more useful tools. Most of the time, a must (or two) in any squad.

Why go rifleman?

Viper5 · Post by **Viper5** » 2008-01-06 13:52

Officer
Medic
LAT
Marksman
Support
Engineer/HAT

hx.bjoffe · Post by **hx.bjoffe** » 2008-01-06 14:31

Jonny wrote: A scope will save your life in long and mid range engagements.

In 0.7, cover or/and supressive fire from your squad will save your life.
You dont have to shoot back every time your shot at.