( search forums )
Weapon Balance: Journey Without Destination?
Soldat Forums - Soldat Talk - Weapon Balance Discussion
Deleted User
November 9, 2005, 10:38 pm
I was typing up a post regarding what should be done (if anything) with the ruger when I realized something: Everyone has been struggling with this whole Weapons Balance Monster without even identifying what the ideal weapon balance is.

Before I continue, however, I'd like to make a note of how I find each individual weapon to be useful:
I personally find the Ruger to be suited for mid to long-range general use on even terrain, Desert Eagles to be useful for short to mid-range general use on uneven terrain, HK MP5 for short-range assault, AK-74 for long-range assault, Steyr for mid-range assault and assault support, Spas-12 for close-range and "moment's notice" firing, Barrett for sniping, M79 for cramped spaces and firing around obstacles, Minimi for long-range general support, and the Minigun for defense support and forcing opponents into positions (usually corners, where they're easily finished off).
Please keep this in mind while reading the rest of this post.

It seems to me that most people, when they think of the ideal weapon balance, imagine being able to use any gun against any other gun in any situation, and always have the same chances of survival. Fortunately for me, I eventually got to the point in my development as a Soldat player in which I realized that no single gun was meant to be capable of being used exclusively. The only way to achieve any level of fairness in the "Weapon A vs Weapon B" scenario that so many people bring up is to eliminate any and all choices of weapon, forcing every player to use the same and only gun.

What's worse, is that even then it is not truly fair; someone is bound to complain that it's too hard to kill anyone because the defensive capabilities of the gun are better than the offensive, or something similar.

If a game of Soldat is to have so many as two (let alone fourteen) weapons to choose from, some of the weapons must have advantages and disadvantages against the other guns in varying situations. The narrow-minded approach of taking individual scenarios and dissecting them cannot possibly lead to a balanced weapon setup; attempting such is like trying to paint a work of art in the pointilism style without ever stepping back to see how all the little dots are coming together.

What all those little dots make when combined into a single image is what must be focused upon. We must see, regardless of whether Weapon A can beat Weapon B with relative ease under such and such a set of circumstances, that all of the weapons come together to create an environment where every situation has at least one weapon suited for it--without any one weapon being suited for every situation.

Hopefully, you now see at this point why I threw in my personal opinion on each weapon earlier in this post. I think it is safe to say we have a good start on things in this respect--all we have to do now is make a precise final destination for our journey in weapon balance, analyze our current position on the path to this destination, and then take the necessary steps to reach it.

November 10, 2005, 1:25 pm
I agree to that, I really do. But you also have to consider one thing: Definitely not each weapon should be able to beat any other in any given situation. But still there should always be more than 1 more weapon to counter another weapon. For sure this game is mostly team-based, but we aren't playing rock-paper-scissor here, so variety should surely be bigger. But weapons like the Barret just force you to adapting an exact playing style if you want to be able to compete. In this case for example your only chances are a) using a Barret yourself or b) Spraying like hell, which isn't very respectable, either, imho. And there are always weapons that have an advantage over every other weapon, which also isn't the way it should be.

November 15, 2005, 8:43 am
OH dude, finaly someone with a good prespective of things.
This is the exact reason why we havent even gone near to finding a good balance for more then 3 years of the game.
The barretards will want their barret to be good for everything and to be able to own everything.
The rugertards will want their ruger to be just that.
etc etc.
And it always came to the final outcome of which weapon has more votes.
Which ofcourse was the Barret before 1.2.1
In 1.2.1 autos took the highlights since everyone who started playing with it enjoyed the benefits of owning with it no matter what where or who.

That's why I suggested the n00bs to be out "beta testers"
The n00bs only want to find an easy weapon since its hard enough for them to deal with the new game and style.

If the weapons balance will be perfect, the image we'll get is a huge amount of veriety in the n00bish community, you'll enter a server and if not right on start, after a round you'll immidiatly see a veriety in weapons.
Today its mostly Barrets and M79's.
before that it was a spraying fest of autos, mostly sprayers.
and before the the barret alone.

November 16, 2005, 6:23 am
i can agree with that. i think we need to have all primaries be of equal potency but have distinctively different firing characteristics, allowing personal preference to decide which weapon to use. all primaries should kill fairly quickly and lend themselves well to CTF/offence. i should be able to charge the opposing team's base with any weapon and not be at any kind of disadvantage (compared to other weapons in the same secnario) if i have masterded that weapon. soldat is a game of offence and all weapons should have equal offensive capabilities. this is what i would like to see:

shotgun: the single most powerful close range weapon in the game but doesn't lend itself well to mid range combat.
deagles: the 2nd most powerful close range weapon and can be used for mid ranged combat if you have good aim (slower bullet speed makes aiming harder)
MP5: most powerfull MG at close ranges but limited to close and mid range.
AK-74: powerfull MG that fires a big round but dosen't have a lot of bullet speed, in otherwords, the minimi shoots with a flater trajectory but does less bullet damage. i'd like to see the minimi be inferior to the AK at close range but it's flater trajectory making it a much better MG at longer ranges.
Minimi: see above
aug: stronger than the AK at close ranges due to the higher ROF, but not as strong at the MP5. it fires a pretty small round at a high velocity so it should have greater range than the AK and MP5 but the bink from the high ROF should make it slighter less proficent than the AK at longer ranges.
mini gun: the should be the ultimate sprayer considering it's long reload the limited mobilty. it sould have least blink of any auto.
m79: it should stay one shot kill but i'd like to see more splash damage. missed shots can still kill soldat with partial health and the damage done to the m79 user from close shots would be prety lethal.
barret: compared to the m79 it should be nearly as rapid firing, do less damage (one shot kill but no splash damage because it does not fire an explosive round, duh) but have much more range. it should be very accurate, meaning low to no blink however the difficulty of the weapon should be the aim. use a startup delay not blink and long firing intervals to nerf the weapon. the long firing interval of the 1.2.1 and the long firing interval and blink of the 1.3 barret forces camping. lower the firing interval, ditch the blink and throw in a delay for aiming. afterall that is realistic, you can't go around hip-shooting a barret like a cowboy. you need to aim the weapon and the delay simulates that.
socom: it's fine the way it is.
SAW: it's somewhat balanced. it's a little too easy to own with it. i'd like to see a shot interval and ammo increase.
LAW: i like the way it was in 1.2.1. the slow reload and NO firing delay made it a quick-kill weapon. the long reload gave it limited use in 1.2.1. i'd often use it once, drop it and pick up a barret. i'd like to see a slightly lower warm up delay and a shorter reload.
knife: it's fine the way it is.