Tribes:Ascend Forums

FAQ • Login • Register

Automatic weapon balance?
Author	Message
ebonyknife Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 6:17 am Posts: 519	Re: Automatic weapon balance? Rangelost wrote: C) They're really messed up--they need major adjustment. The problem with automatic weapons is not their damage output; it is their accuracy. The classic chaingun was mostly a finisher weapon. You would point it in the general direction of a player and hope for the flechette clusters to hit. This is the idea automatics should be designed around. Currently, automatic weapons are so accurate that instead of trying their best to fire a well-placed disc or grenade at a flag carrier flying at high speed, players simply pull out their automatic weapons and hold down the fire button while leading their target. Every single bullet hits, every single time, because the hitboxes of bullets are unbelievably larger than the bullet themselves. This makes flying, the most basic feature of any Tribes game, absolutely dangerous. Its an unrealistic to expect people to land mid airs on 300 speed cappers, of course they are going to use autos if they can't hit an explosive. _________________ Autos are fine, stop bitchin
Mon May 21, 2012 1:18 am

Rangelost Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:09 pm Posts: 157	Re: Automatic weapon balance? @ebonyknife In which case, it is the sniper's role to take down the enemy flag carrier. If automatic weapons were meant to be able to kill pathfinders going at 300 km/h, then they would instantly obliterate any target that moves any slower than that. Now this, is unrealistic. Oh, wait... that's what we currently have. _________________
Mon May 21, 2012 5:15 am

Renthrak Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:05 pm Posts: 180	Re: Automatic weapon balance? Voted C. The short version is there are just too many issues with the autos. There needs to be more variation in performance from one gun to the next, and bullets shouldn't be just as effective against powered armor wearing soldiers as grenades and rockets are. Long version: DMB chaingun is the only auto with significant bullet spread, and the auto that would be most useful with higher long-range accuracy. I would say tighten the cone of fire on the DMB chaingun, and put in a light chaingun with lower damage and larger spread for a different class. SMGs aren't balanced with other autos. SMGs are short range weapons with a high rate of fire at the cost of accuracy and stopping power compared to rifles. This does not describe T:A SMGs at all. T:A SMGs are highly accurate out to their maximum range; their effective range exceeds the useful range of all explosive weapons, meaning you can rain bullets at people and easily dodge any disks fired in response; due to the particular mechanics of the game, SMGs are most effective against the most heavily armored opponents, posing a far greater threat to heavies than explosive weapons in general; there is little to no difference in overall effectiveness between SMGs and assault rifles or even light machineguns with regard to damage per second. SMGs should have a fairly wide cone of fire, much shorter range, and lower per-shot damage. Assault rifles have virtually the same damage and rate of fire as SMGs. Per shot damage should be higher, and rate of fire lower. Effective range of SMGs should be half that of ARs. Overall, the assault rifles are the most balanced autos. The difference between the X1 LMG and the TCN4 is magazine capacity and damage falloff over distance. Rate of fire, accuracy, and damage per shot are all essentially identical. This means either the LMG is massively under-powered, or the SMGs are insane. Machineguns are meant to be large weapons firing powerful ammunition at longer ranges than assault rifles at the cost of being heavier and more difficult to carry, and often slightly less accurate. Rate of fire and per-shot damage should be higher than SMGs and assault rifles. I have little experience with the Falcon and Rhino, so I can't really comment on those in any useful way. One of the defining characteristics of autos in T:A is that they deliver higher accuracy and comparable damage per second to explosive weapons, with no possibility of self-damage, and the ability to hit targets in the air and on the ground equally well. The only down side is the inability to damage base assets or heavy vehicles. The general idea of the Tribes setting is that everyone is wearing powered armor, requiring what would otherwise be over-the-top weapons to combat them effectively. If simple bullet firing weapons were sufficient, disk launchers and such would never have needed to exist in the first place. Consequently, it would seem to make more sense that the explosive weapons would be the all-around weapons, with bullet weapons occupying narrow niche roles. The current balance is essentially the reverse, with bullet weapons useful in more situations than explosive weapons. In general, explosive weapons seem to be sufficiently effective in T:A, which means that bullet weapons require a relative reduction in effectiveness. I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but there it is.
Mon May 21, 2012 5:42 am

lHEXENl Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:41 pm Posts: 96	Re: Automatic weapon balance? I'll just go ahead and add my two cents, of which I will not argue or discuss any further than this post. The automatic weapons are more or less fine as they are... for the general majority of players. They become a problem as player skill increases, which is found more in competitive matches and less for just general gameplay. But as the player skill rises, the usefulness of the automatic weapons start to have a profound disconnect from the projectile based explosive weaponry. The amount of skill needed to do well with these weapons is higher than it is for the automatics and it continues exponentially in this fashion as player skill continues to rise. Hence, you get high level competitive matches played out with near all automatic weapons. Here's the problem. Lots of T:A players aren't competitive, and it's pretentious to think everyone should, could or would be if they had the chance. Lots of people just play the game for casual fun. They jump on for a few matches and then jump off, and it's doubtful they think at all about the competitive nature or aspects of the game. For these players, which I have to assume represent a fair majority, messing with the automatics significantly WOULD break the game. The example I just listed above would then be flipped, only you'd be looking at casual instead of competitive play. The explosive projectile based weaponry would be more prevalent in just normal games, even if the tradeoffs for high level competitive play would equal out with the automatics. I imagine these are the things HiRez has to take into account before making any sort of balancing decisions and it's a tough call. Do you balance the game for the casual players, who probably represent a larger demographic, while ignoring your hardcore fans and players? Or do you balance based on the competitive scene and risk turning new and casual customers away because everyone uses explosive weaponry in pubs? And lets not forget, it's often the dedicated fan base that are the most vocal, while not necessarily representing the largest demographic. This is why I voted that the automatic weapons just need to be fine tuned. Nothing spectacular or over the top, just some finite adjustments with damage, RoF and projectile speed. It would be naive to believe HiRez could just make a blanket change on all the automatics while appealing to everyone, but just fine tuning them a bit would be a nice compromise from both ends in my opinion. _________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/hexentv1/videos
Mon May 21, 2012 6:48 am

TheAlgerian Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:48 am Posts: 165	Re: Automatic weapon balance? If you ask me. Need big nerfing: Falcon. (complete BS, no need to aim, just spread out your clip and you're gold) Need minor nerfing: LAR (it's supposed to be a side-weapon FFS) maybe just add some recoil if bursts are 0.1 seconds close to each others so using a script would be punishing more than helping. NJ4 SMG NJ5 SMG Needs no further nerfing: All the other. _________________
Mon May 21, 2012 8:26 am

RickBloodaxe Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:06 pm Posts: 154	Re: Automatic weapon balance? lHEXENl wrote: I'll just go ahead and add my two cents, of which I will not argue or discuss any further than this post. The automatic weapons are more or less fine as they are... for the general majority of players. They become a problem as player skill increases, which is found more in competitive matches and less for just general gameplay. But as the player skill rises, the usefulness of the automatic weapons start to have a profound disconnect from the projectile based explosive weaponry. The amount of skill needed to do well with these weapons is higher than it is for the automatics and it continues exponentially in this fashion as player skill continues to rise. Hence, you get high level competitive matches played out with near all automatic weapons. Here's the problem. Lots of T:A players aren't competitive, and it's pretentious to think everyone should, could or would be if they had the chance. Lots of people just play the game for casual fun. They jump on for a few matches and then jump off, and it's doubtful they think at all about the competitive nature or aspects of the game. For these players, which I have to assume represent a fair majority, messing with the automatics significantly WOULD break the game. The example I just listed above would then be flipped, only you'd be looking at casual instead of competitive play. The explosive projectile based weaponry would be more prevalent in just normal games, even if the tradeoffs for high level competitive play would equal out with the automatics. I imagine these are the things HiRez has to take into account before making any sort of balancing decisions and it's a tough call. Do you balance the game for the casual players, who probably represent a larger demographic, while ignoring your hardcore fans and players? Or do you balance based on the competitive scene and risk turning new and casual customers away because everyone uses explosive weaponry in pubs? And lets not forget, it's often the dedicated fan base that are the most vocal, while not necessarily representing the largest demographic. This is why I voted that the automatic weapons just need to be fine tuned. Nothing spectacular or over the top, just some finite adjustments with damage, RoF and projectile speed. It would be naive to believe HiRez could just make a blanket change on all the automatics while appealing to everyone, but just fine tuning them a bit would be a nice compromise from both ends in my opinion. Great well-worded post. These are my thoughts exactly.
Mon May 21, 2012 11:34 am

IronKane Beta Tester Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:07 pm Posts: 497	Re: Automatic weapon balance? lHEXENl wrote: I'll just go ahead and add my two cents, of which I will not argue or discuss any further than this post. The automatic weapons are more or less fine as they are... for the general majority of players. They become a problem as player skill increases, which is found more in competitive matches and less for just general gameplay. But as the player skill rises, the usefulness of the automatic weapons start to have a profound disconnect from the projectile based explosive weaponry. The amount of skill needed to do well with these weapons is higher than it is for the automatics and it continues exponentially in this fashion as player skill continues to rise. Hence, you get high level competitive matches played out with near all automatic weapons. Here's the problem. Lots of T:A players aren't competitive, and it's pretentious to think everyone should, could or would be if they had the chance. Lots of people just play the game for casual fun. They jump on for a few matches and then jump off, and it's doubtful they think at all about the competitive nature or aspects of the game. For these players, which I have to assume represent a fair majority, messing with the automatics significantly WOULD break the game. The example I just listed above would then be flipped, only you'd be looking at casual instead of competitive play. The explosive projectile based weaponry would be more prevalent in just normal games, even if the tradeoffs for high level competitive play would equal out with the automatics. I imagine these are the things HiRez has to take into account before making any sort of balancing decisions and it's a tough call. Do you balance the game for the casual players, who probably represent a larger demographic, while ignoring your hardcore fans and players? Or do you balance based on the competitive scene and risk turning new and casual customers away because everyone uses explosive weaponry in pubs? And lets not forget, it's often the dedicated fan base that are the most vocal, while not necessarily representing the largest demographic. This is why I voted that the automatic weapons just need to be fine tuned. Nothing spectacular or over the top, just some finite adjustments with damage, RoF and projectile speed. It would be naive to believe HiRez could just make a blanket change on all the automatics while appealing to everyone, but just fine tuning them a bit would be a nice compromise from both ends in my opinion. I'll just point out that getting decimated by Autos is as bad and even worse than by Spinfusors. At least with the Spinfusor that noob has 1.88 seconds (Spinfusor reload time) in which to retaliate or run. With the Autos, once they've got a decent lock on you, you're pretty much toast if you're a noob. It's not good for the game if the new players are getting slaughtered without an opportunity to learn some skills. So giving the noobs this big equalizer that negates skiing skill and predictive aiming and within a few weeks elevates you to pubstar status so that you can pwn the noobs is a vicious circle that does not promote longevity for the game.
Mon May 21, 2012 12:05 pm

disci Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:48 pm Posts: 1025 Location: Winland	Re: Automatic weapon balance? Rangelost wrote: @ebonyknife In which case, it is the sniper's role to take down the enemy flag carrier. If automatic weapons were meant to be able to kill pathfinders going at 300 km/h, then they would instantly obliterate any target that moves any slower than that. Now this, is unrealistic. Oh, wait... that's what we currently have. Slower RoF + 100% inheritance. Can you feel that, huh?! CAN YOU FEEL THAT, CAPTAIN COMPOST?!
Mon May 21, 2012 2:41 pm

Icedaemon Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:30 am Posts: 221	Re: Automatic weapon balance? While obviously reducing their damage factors would be the easiest way to balance the automatics, I would rather go for something more interesting, like this: NJ4 - Switch from wholly automatic to semi-automatic 4 or 5-round burst, without increasing the rate of fire during a burst (or by keeping the bursts well apart) or increasing the damage. Increase spread somewhat. NJ5 - Slow rate of fire to keep DPS on the same level (if not lower, if the NJ4 also gets a larger spread) as that of the NJ4 after the burst mode modification and take the NJ4's more frequent reloading more into account. Rename to carbine - it's a rifle, not an SMG. In both cases, spray and pray becomes less of a viable tactic, but the weapon preserves many of its current traits. TCN4 and Falcon - cone of fire spreads out rapidly during continuous fire. Reduce the Falcon projectile hitbox. They are machine pistols meant for up-close combat. If a TCN needs to fight outdoors, spaced-out single shots would still be accurate and painful, but holding down the fire button will not rapidly deplete the health of anyone you sort of point at unless they can see the yellow of your visor. Rhino - just a damage decrease, sure, why not. X1 LMG - This one is a bit tricky. How to keep it as an LMG while making sure that it is not significantly superior to the spinfusor? I would probably go for a much longer reload time, as this is something that many modern LMGs have. Having 80 bullets in a tiny clip that one just pops in there seems silly. This would need a new animation and possibly a slightly changed weapon model though.
Mon May 21, 2012 3:42 pm

ebonyknife Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 6:17 am Posts: 519	Re: Automatic weapon balance? Rangelost wrote: @ebonyknife In which case, it is the sniper's role to take down the enemy flag carrier. If automatic weapons were meant to be able to kill pathfinders going at 300 km/h, then they would instantly obliterate any target that moves any slower than that. Now this, is unrealistic. Oh, wait... that's what we currently have. Its already primarily the snipers role to take down fast capper that leave the stand, auto's just help them. Hardly anyone gets more than 10% accuracy on the ridiculously fast cappers that get off your stand, its mostly for finishing them off if they are already low. And autos hardly "instantly" obliterate you, explosives that kill you in one shot do that, autos are DPS weapons that whittle you down, and only kill you really fast if you have ridiculously good aim. I don't know why everyone on the forums hates the current balance. Auto's are the primary mid air and long range DPS weapons, explosives are used against people indoors and on the ground, explosives are used for burst damage, explosives are used to clear the flag stand, explosives are used to destroy turrets, gens, other base assets and explosives are used as arcing projectiles if autos are out of LOS. Seems like you people wan't to remove the one thing autos ARE good at and replace that with explosives again, why? _________________ Autos are fine, stop bitchin
Mon May 21, 2012 6:06 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Automatic weapon balance?

Author

Message

ebonyknife

Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 6:17 am
Posts: 519

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

Rangelost wrote:

C) They're really messed up--they need major adjustment.

The problem with automatic weapons is not their damage output; it is their accuracy. The classic chaingun was mostly a finisher weapon. You would point it in the general direction of a player and hope for the flechette clusters to hit. This is the idea automatics should be designed around.

Currently, automatic weapons are so accurate that instead of trying their best to fire a well-placed disc or grenade at a flag carrier flying at high speed, players simply pull out their automatic weapons and hold down the fire button while leading their target. Every single bullet hits, every single time, because the hitboxes of bullets are unbelievably larger than the bullet themselves. This makes flying, the most basic feature of any Tribes game, absolutely dangerous.

Its an unrealistic to expect people to land mid airs on 300 speed cappers, of course they are going to use autos if they can't hit an explosive.

_________________
Autos are fine, stop bitchin

Mon May 21, 2012 1:18 am

Rangelost

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 157

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

@ebonyknife
In which case, it is the sniper's role to take down the enemy flag carrier. If automatic weapons were meant to be able to kill pathfinders going at 300 km/h, then they would instantly obliterate any target that moves any slower than that. Now this, is unrealistic. Oh, wait... that's what we currently have.

_________________

Mon May 21, 2012 5:15 am

Renthrak

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:05 pm
Posts: 180

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

Voted C.

The short version is there are just too many issues with the autos. There needs to be more variation in performance from one gun to the next, and bullets shouldn't be just as effective against powered armor wearing soldiers as grenades and rockets are.

Long version:
DMB chaingun is the only auto with significant bullet spread, and the auto that would be most useful with higher long-range accuracy. I would say tighten the cone of fire on the DMB chaingun, and put in a light chaingun with lower damage and larger spread for a different class.

SMGs aren't balanced with other autos. SMGs are short range weapons with a high rate of fire at the cost of accuracy and stopping power compared to rifles. This does not describe T:A SMGs at all. T:A SMGs are highly accurate out to their maximum range; their effective range exceeds the useful range of all explosive weapons, meaning you can rain bullets at people and easily dodge any disks fired in response; due to the particular mechanics of the game, SMGs are most effective against the most heavily armored opponents, posing a far greater threat to heavies than explosive weapons in general; there is little to no difference in overall effectiveness between SMGs and assault rifles or even light machineguns with regard to damage per second. SMGs should have a fairly wide cone of fire, much shorter range, and lower per-shot damage.

Assault rifles have virtually the same damage and rate of fire as SMGs. Per shot damage should be higher, and rate of fire lower. Effective range of SMGs should be half that of ARs. Overall, the assault rifles are the most balanced autos.

The difference between the X1 LMG and the TCN4 is magazine capacity and damage falloff over distance. Rate of fire, accuracy, and damage per shot are all essentially identical. This means either the LMG is massively under-powered, or the SMGs are insane. Machineguns are meant to be large weapons firing powerful ammunition at longer ranges than assault rifles at the cost of being heavier and more difficult to carry, and often slightly less accurate. Rate of fire and per-shot damage should be higher than SMGs and assault rifles.

I have little experience with the Falcon and Rhino, so I can't really comment on those in any useful way.

One of the defining characteristics of autos in T:A is that they deliver higher accuracy and comparable damage per second to explosive weapons, with no possibility of self-damage, and the ability to hit targets in the air and on the ground equally well. The only down side is the inability to damage base assets or heavy vehicles. The general idea of the Tribes setting is that everyone is wearing powered armor, requiring what would otherwise be over-the-top weapons to combat them effectively. If simple bullet firing weapons were sufficient, disk launchers and such would never have needed to exist in the first place.

Consequently, it would seem to make more sense that the explosive weapons would be the all-around weapons, with bullet weapons occupying narrow niche roles. The current balance is essentially the reverse, with bullet weapons useful in more situations than explosive weapons. In general, explosive weapons seem to be sufficiently effective in T:A, which means that bullet weapons require a relative reduction in effectiveness.

I know my opinion doesn't count for much, but there it is.

Mon May 21, 2012 5:42 am

lHEXENl

Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:41 pm
Posts: 96

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

I'll just go ahead and add my two cents, of which I will not argue or discuss any further than this post.

The automatic weapons are more or less fine as they are... for the general majority of players.

They become a problem as player skill increases, which is found more in competitive matches and less for just general gameplay. But as the player skill rises, the usefulness of the automatic weapons start to have a profound disconnect from the projectile based explosive weaponry. The amount of skill needed to do well with these weapons is higher than it is for the automatics and it continues exponentially in this fashion as player skill continues to rise. Hence, you get high level competitive matches played out with near all automatic weapons.

Here's the problem.

Lots of T:A players aren't competitive, and it's pretentious to think everyone should, could or would be if they had the chance. Lots of people just play the game for casual fun. They jump on for a few matches and then jump off, and it's doubtful they think at all about the competitive nature or aspects of the game. For these players, which I have to assume represent a fair majority, messing with the automatics significantly WOULD break the game.

The example I just listed above would then be flipped, only you'd be looking at casual instead of competitive play. The explosive projectile based weaponry would be more prevalent in just normal games, even if the tradeoffs for high level competitive play would equal out with the automatics.

I imagine these are the things HiRez has to take into account before making any sort of balancing decisions and it's a tough call. Do you balance the game for the casual players, who probably represent a larger demographic, while ignoring your hardcore fans and players? Or do you balance based on the competitive scene and risk turning new and casual customers away because everyone uses explosive weaponry in pubs? And lets not forget, it's often the dedicated fan base that are the most vocal, while not necessarily representing the largest demographic.

This is why I voted that the automatic weapons just need to be fine tuned. Nothing spectacular or over the top, just some finite adjustments with damage, RoF and projectile speed. It would be naive to believe HiRez could just make a blanket change on all the automatics while appealing to everyone, but just fine tuning them a bit would be a nice compromise from both ends in my opinion.

_________________

http://www.youtube.com/user/hexentv1/videos

Mon May 21, 2012 6:48 am

TheAlgerian

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:48 am
Posts: 165

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

If you ask me.

Need big nerfing: Falcon. (complete BS, no need to aim, just spread out your clip and you're gold)

Need minor nerfing:
LAR (it's supposed to be a side-weapon FFS) maybe just add some recoil if bursts are 0.1 seconds close to each others so using a script would be punishing more than helping.
NJ4 SMG
NJ5 SMG

Needs no further nerfing: All the other.

_________________

Mon May 21, 2012 8:26 am

RickBloodaxe

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:06 pm
Posts: 154

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

lHEXENl wrote:

Great well-worded post. These are my thoughts exactly.

Mon May 21, 2012 11:34 am

IronKane

Beta Tester

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 497

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

lHEXENl wrote:

I'll just point out that getting decimated by Autos is as bad and even worse than by Spinfusors. At least with the Spinfusor that noob has 1.88 seconds (Spinfusor reload time) in which to retaliate or run. With the Autos, once they've got a decent lock on you, you're pretty much toast if you're a noob.

It's not good for the game if the new players are getting slaughtered without an opportunity to learn some skills. So giving the noobs this big equalizer that negates skiing skill and predictive aiming and within a few weeks elevates you to pubstar status so that you can pwn the noobs is a vicious circle that does not promote longevity for the game.

Mon May 21, 2012 12:05 pm

disci

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:48 pm
Posts: 1025
Location: Winland

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

Rangelost wrote:

Slower RoF + 100% inheritance. Can you feel that, huh?! CAN YOU FEEL THAT, CAPTAIN COMPOST?!

Mon May 21, 2012 2:41 pm

Icedaemon

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:30 am
Posts: 221

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

While obviously reducing their damage factors would be the easiest way to balance the automatics, I would rather go for something more interesting, like this:

NJ4 - Switch from wholly automatic to semi-automatic 4 or 5-round burst, without increasing the rate of fire during a burst (or by keeping the bursts well apart) or increasing the damage. Increase spread somewhat.
NJ5 - Slow rate of fire to keep DPS on the same level (if not lower, if the NJ4 also gets a larger spread) as that of the NJ4 after the burst mode modification and take the NJ4's more frequent reloading more into account. Rename to carbine - it's a rifle, not an SMG.
In both cases, spray and pray becomes less of a viable tactic, but the weapon preserves many of its current traits.
TCN4 and Falcon - cone of fire spreads out rapidly during continuous fire. Reduce the Falcon projectile hitbox. They are machine pistols meant for up-close combat. If a TCN needs to fight outdoors, spaced-out single shots would still be accurate and painful, but holding down the fire button will not rapidly deplete the health of anyone you sort of point at unless they can see the yellow of your visor.
Rhino - just a damage decrease, sure, why not.
X1 LMG - This one is a bit tricky. How to keep it as an LMG while making sure that it is not significantly superior to the spinfusor? I would probably go for a much longer reload time, as this is something that many modern LMGs have. Having 80 bullets in a tiny clip that one just pops in there seems silly. This would need a new animation and possibly a slightly changed weapon model though.

Mon May 21, 2012 3:42 pm

ebonyknife

Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 6:17 am
Posts: 519

Re: Automatic weapon balance?

Rangelost wrote:

Its already primarily the snipers role to take down fast capper that leave the stand, auto's just help them. Hardly anyone gets more than 10% accuracy on the ridiculously fast cappers that get off your stand, its mostly for finishing them off if they are already low.

And autos hardly "instantly" obliterate you, explosives that kill you in one shot do that, autos are DPS weapons that whittle you down, and only kill you really fast if you have ridiculously good aim.

I don't know why everyone on the forums hates the current balance. Auto's are the primary mid air and long range DPS weapons, explosives are used against people indoors and on the ground, explosives are used for burst damage, explosives are used to clear the flag stand, explosives are used to destroy turrets, gens, other base assets and explosives are used as arcing projectiles if autos are out of LOS.

Seems like you people wan't to remove the one thing autos ARE good at and replace that with explosives again, why?

_________________
Autos are fine, stop bitchin

Mon May 21, 2012 6:06 pm

Forum rules

Automatic weapon balance?