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.
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.