Balance issues (AK, M16, M14)

[imnrk]

I'm too lazy to read this whole thread but I love the third AK as is. I try to stay in close range scenarios as often as I can, so the range isn't a problem. If I wanted a weapon for ranged I would pick the semi-auto. The third AK is a beastin mid-close range. It has a higher magazine than the m146 and is easier to control. The sights are less obstructive as well. And when talking abount non-obstructive sights, check out the second ak!

About balance issues, is it just me or is the flamethrower overpowered? I only had a chance to use it one, but when I did get to play with it I found it incinerated soldiers instantly. I guess the drawback is that you have to be careful with it around your teammates?

 

[Gladius]

Thread topic... Let's continue the flamer discussion here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive....me-love-to-flamethrower?p=2295314#post2295314

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Yeah just had another two round match with the AK, got 98 kills no sweat. I just can't do that with the M16.

Heck here's a fun fact for you, my ingame accuracy with the M16 is 15.8%, with the AK it's 18.9%, and that's despite it being a **** ton less accurate!

Why is that? Well I hate to sound like a broken record but, it all boils down to the damn sights(!). The AK's sights are just miles better at leading moving targets, esp. those who move erratically to try and dodge your fire. With the M16 I quite simply lose such targets out of sight, and bam the target stops, takes aim and shoots me = extremely frustrating when you had the bead on him!

In short: The AK's sights are sufficiently superior that they more than make up for double the inaccuracy.

Thus IMHO:
Priority no.1 = FIXING THE DAMN PEEP SIGHTS, making them less obstructive!
Priority no.2 = fix the AK's accuracy, i.e. improve it.

 

[newtee2]

What you describe seems like just the way it should be. From what I understand the m16 was all about accuracy with an intermediate cartridge while the AK wasn't as accurate but had more stopping power. To me it seems that this is balanced with the fact that the m16 only gets a 20 round mag.

As for the sights I think they're fine. The grease gun has the worse sights of all the guns, but thankfully we can fold the stock.

And the m14? It's just kind of there just like the springfield 1903 was there even though most people used the garand. It's nice to have that option!

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Not only will the devs make a lot of people happy if the fix the peeps sights, they will be fixing a lot of balancing issues and unrealistic weapon performance in the process as well. It's been a long time coming.

I have absolute faith that they can do it too, because they've certainly shown great skill and ingenuity when it comes to solving other problems.

 

[Jagdwyre]

I'd just like to point out that what your K/D is for the M16 and AK is going to be heavily dependent on the fact that, unless you are exclusively playing the two Supremacy maps in the game, the vast majority of the time you're defending as the North Vietnamese. Defending generally lends itself to getting more kills(which is why attackers are virtually always given more tickets).

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I'd just like to point out that what your K/D is for the M16 and AK is going to be heavily dependent on the fact that, unless you are exclusively playing the two Supremacy maps in the game, the vast majority of the time you're defending as the North Vietnamese. Defending generally lends itself to getting more kills(which is why attackers are virtually always given more tickets).

I'd say I play as aggressively as I can on both sides, i.e. I usually am on the attack. Even in hue city, I'm attacking straight off the bat and doing my best to push on into the enemy lines, and the AK lends itself extremely well to this playstyle.

But ofcourse the K/D ratio is never going to tell the real story as it relies on too many factors. However the specific weapon stats are quite telling as they are not subject to the same uncertainties. Thus that the AK manages a noticable higher accuracy than the M16 despite being a much less accurate weapon just screams to the fact of its better sights and how important proper unobstructive sights really are.

Also as I've almost exclusively been practicing with these two rifles I really am noticing the difference in penetration now, I extremely often take out enemies behind walls with the AK. Meanwhile trying the same with the M16 seldom works unless it's really thin cover. This is an advantage for the AK which is not of small value(!)

 

[Perun58]

It's probably depeding on how each of us plays the game but on Cu Chi for example I was placing single accurate shots with the M16. Distances were around 100m and there were cases where I could see like half of the head of the enemy. Of course I could hit them. With the AK I would not have half of these kills...

Also, I would not pay attention to accuracy stat in game at all. At least in my case, because I often spray to the point where enemy COULD be just to supress them (or kill them with lucky shot), making accuracy stat irrelevant. So unless you're trying to kill enemy with accurate shots without spraying or something ALL THE TIME. The accuracy stat in the game won't tell you much either. Then again - yes, the M16 sights are too obstructive. However changing only those leaving the M14, MAT and M3 as they are would seem very weird.

 

[Gladius]

I'm afraid my accuracy stats won't tell you anything about the rifles. Just that I use suppressive fire sometimes. Overall I have more kills with the M16. The low recoil in combination with that sniper grade accuracy results in a pretty long effective range in burst fire. And the AK is in my opinion underwhelming in bursts. Below 25 meters it shouldn't be a problem to land more than one hit with a burst.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

It's probably depeding on how each of us plays the game but on Cu Chi for example I was placing single accurate shots with the M16. Distances were around 100m and there were cases where I could see like half of the head of the enemy. Of course I could hit them. With the AK I would not have half of these kills...

Ah yes, but that's also sort of how it should be really when we're that small of a target. HOWEVER next time you face this problem try instead to aim at the cover immediately below the part of the head you observe, the AK's bullets will most of the time penetrate straight through, I very often get kills with the AK that way - just a small but deadly effective tactic I picked up on, and I do exactly the same with the M60.

Also, I would not pay attention to accuracy stat in game at all. At least in my case, because I often spray to the point where enemy COULD be just to supress them (or kill them with lucky shot), making accuracy stat irrelevant. So unless you're trying to kill enemy with accurate shots without spraying or something ALL THE TIME. The accuracy stat in the game won't tell you much either.

Well I try not to spray, infact I'd say I very rarely do it as it only seems to attract unwanted attention. Instead I only fire when I see someone, and mostly single shots. I only switch to automatic if I have to enter a building.

Then again - yes, the M16 sights are too obstructive. However changing only those leaving the M14, MAT and M3 as they are would seem very weird.

Oh I agree completely, I want ALL the peep sights corrected. However the M16 & M14 get first priority in my mind, cause right now they're just damn uncomfortable to use.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I'm afraid my accuracy stats won't tell you anything about the rifles. Just that I use suppressive fire sometimes. Overall I have more kills with the M16. The low recoil in combination with that sniper grade accuracy results in a pretty long effective range in burst fire. And the AK is in my opinion underwhelming in bursts. Below 25 meters it shouldn't be a problem to land more than one hit with a burst.

I have more kills with the M16 too, but that's because it's the weapon I've used the most so far. The AK47 is right behind it though, but with a higher K/D and accuracy stat to boot, and that's also the impression it leaves me with ingame. I quite simply feel a lot more comfortable having the AK on me, it's extremely confidence inspiring, to the point of me using some damn daring tactics when playing as a VC rifleman.

That being said I agree that the AK's accuracy is off, it really shouldn't be THAT inaccurate, but I'm also left with the impression that if it was anymore accurate and the M16's sights weren't fixed, well then it would just completely dominate the game. Fixing the M16's sights along with increasing the AK's accuracy would balance things out perfectly.

 

[ComradeHX]

Basically M14 > M16 > AK.

AK's only real advantage is that it has more rounds per magazine than the other two, which doesn't matter much when you get shot and killed first often from longer ranges than your gun can reliably hit where you aim. It's nice when you run up to an unsuspecting enemy squad that are fixated on staring at a cap point, but that's about it.

I would like to see a new type of AK with milled receiver that has AKM's firerate, Type 56's recoil, but M16's accuracy.

AKs overall(aside from AKM) should stop doing that stupid jumping left/right thing, they should have a right-biased recoil to make it easier to control(and be more realistic), while AKM should have noticeably less vertical recoil and only a tiny bit of right-bias to recoil due to the muzzle brake.


When it comes down to AK vs. M16, M16 is better in majority of situations because it fits CoD player mentality perfectly: run around like headless chicken(M16 is light), spray down one enemy(M16 shoots fast and has low recoil), reload(M16 has many mags and decent reload speed), rinse and repeat. The lower amount of ammo(18 or so) fits perfectly.
Also works great for one-taps because of the superior accuracy and low recoil so it works for campers too.
Overall a very casual-friendly gun with maybe one downside(the magazine size).

M14 is basically automosin with even more rounds, can kill nearly entire enemy team with one magazine if you find a good position. If team has competent teammate for suppressing enemies, M14 is god gun. I get the most wall-penetration-kills with this than other rifles for obvious reasons.

M14 needs to be nerfed on accuracy, as the jungle as well as many manufacturing error of the time have negative effects on the weapon's accuracy.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

*chuckle*

 

[Gladius]

ikr...

 

[IrishHitman79]

That's not all true, the m1 garand hardly suffered at all in the Pacific/Korea walnut does really well and m14 was plagued by it ?what about the svd or ak?. The issue with the m14 was its front fore-gip used to seprate from the barrel due to heat & climate mostly from full auto fire. It was solved by replacing it with a fibreglass part with vents early war, as this one has.

It was known for being deadly accurate. It had its flaws but it's fine imo.

 

[ComradeHX]

That's not all true, the m1 garand hardly suffered at all in the Pacific/Korea walnut does really well and m14 was plagued by it ?what about the svd or ak?. The issue with the m14 was its front fore-gip used to seprate from the barrel due to heat & climate mostly from full auto fire. It was solved by replacing it with a fibreglass part with vents early war, as this one has.

It was known for being deadly accurate. It had its flaws but it's fine imo.

There are very good reasons why M14 is the the single shortest-lived service rifle for U.S.

First of all, M1 Garand != M14. They may look similar to you but they are not the exact same.
M1 Garand was battleproven to be decent while M14 was battleproven to be the exact opposite.

The classic M14 doesn't have a "front fore-gip"...it has a one-piece stock and handguard on top.

A bit of google can help you a lot with the rest. http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/th...he-m14-legend/

On the contrary, M14 in the knowledgeable circle is well known for being a pain in the *** when you want it to be accurate; "deadly accurate" is a myth civilian shooters(probably don't shoot nearly as many rounds and definitely not in battlefield condition) dreamed up as M14 was the last "steel and wood" battle rifle for U.S.

Ask any civilian shooter about their out of box M1A...etc. without properly bedded stock, they will either beat around the bush about exactly how many MOA their groupings were, or give you a cherrypicked(or just fake) grouping out of maybe 3 shots. Or they only fired M14 against targets up to 50m at best because they can't hit **** beyond 50m.

As for SVD and AK, neither have such problems. (mostly because AK is commonly, but falsely, believed to be inaccurate to begin with)

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

There are very good reasons why M14 is the the single shortest-lived service rifle for U.S.

Yes, because the M16 replaced it.

The rest is just pure fantasy and you're welcome to take it elsewhere.

The M14 was known for its accuracy in Vietnam, with many confirmed kills past 600 yards, and it is still used as a marksmansrifle to this day.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

With that said the only balance issues I see so far ingame are the unrealistically obstructive peep sights, specifically the M16, M14, MAT-49 & Grease gun, and the inaccuracy of the AK's, those two things really need to be fixed ASAP by the devs (!)

I really hope they're listening.

 

[ComradeHX]

Yes, because the M16 replaced it.

The rest is just pure fantasy and you're welcome to take it elsewhere.

The M14 was known for its accuracy in Vietnam, with many confirmed kills past 600 yards, and it is still used as a marksmansrifle to this day.

What you spew is the actual myth; I have sources, you have nothing.

You're welcome to remain irrelevant by never having any evidence to support your theory.


The bullet having enough energy to kill someone semi (yes, it's not a magical manstopper like fanboys make them out to be, do some research on m80 first) reliably out to 600yds do not contradict the rifle's subpar accuracy in general.

These days everyone figured out how finnicky M14s are, so M14 sits in armory even with modern stock...etc.

 

[Gladius]

You're welcome to remain irrelevant by never having any evidence to support your theory.

Would you stop already derailing this thread with your nonsense!