27 Dec 10, 06:45PM
Hello All,
These are just my feelings about game balance, and, more specifically, the in-game guns. Even more specifically, the sub-gun and the Assault-rifle.
Basically, there is no difference between the two. They both have the same DPS and range. The only (minor) differences are that one has 30 ammo, less damage, but with higher ROF. In the hands of a skilled user, both weapons are equally deadly. So in a game where there is no weapon that is the same, this makes no sense at all. There is the carbine, which is very unique, the infamous shot gun, and the sniper, not to mention the pistol and the akimbo power-up. All these weapons are unique/are specialized. All, that is, but the Sub-gun/AR. In my opinion, there SHOULD be a difference between the two, besides the fact that you can rifle sprint/jump with one. Realistically, there are major differences between the two. From Wikipedia: "Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge." And: "An assault rifle, in contrast [to a SMG], uses an intermediate-power cartridge with more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle [which would be the carbine in AC]." Also: "Submachine guns are highly effective in close quarters[...]" In AC, a skilled user can shoot at a person with a SMG at long range and get a kill. In my opinion, the guns need to be re-thought, or merged. There is no point in having two of the same guns. All of this is, of course, my opinion, and I am not responsible if you are offended in any way by what I have said, though I hope you are not. Neater do I want to start a flame war, or anything like that. I am just posting my opinion for review and discussion. Comments and discussion are appreciated.
These are just my feelings about game balance, and, more specifically, the in-game guns. Even more specifically, the sub-gun and the Assault-rifle.
Basically, there is no difference between the two. They both have the same DPS and range. The only (minor) differences are that one has 30 ammo, less damage, but with higher ROF. In the hands of a skilled user, both weapons are equally deadly. So in a game where there is no weapon that is the same, this makes no sense at all. There is the carbine, which is very unique, the infamous shot gun, and the sniper, not to mention the pistol and the akimbo power-up. All these weapons are unique/are specialized. All, that is, but the Sub-gun/AR. In my opinion, there SHOULD be a difference between the two, besides the fact that you can rifle sprint/jump with one. Realistically, there are major differences between the two. From Wikipedia: "Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge." And: "An assault rifle, in contrast [to a SMG], uses an intermediate-power cartridge with more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle [which would be the carbine in AC]." Also: "Submachine guns are highly effective in close quarters[...]" In AC, a skilled user can shoot at a person with a SMG at long range and get a kill. In my opinion, the guns need to be re-thought, or merged. There is no point in having two of the same guns. All of this is, of course, my opinion, and I am not responsible if you are offended in any way by what I have said, though I hope you are not. Neater do I want to start a flame war, or anything like that. I am just posting my opinion for review and discussion. Comments and discussion are appreciated.