Why do insurgent medics and riflemen get the worst weapons?

[WingWalker]

Seems your are mostly talking about playing INS?



Too much here to respond too, will just post in his quote...

Originally Posted by axytho

Maybe these should be split into seperate posts, but they are related:

1) Bolt-action rifles do less damage without a scope


Right now adding a scope to a mosin means damage increases from 56 to 90. Suggestion: please change projectile of vnrif_nagant to 762_54_sniper.


It is a way of representing that the 7.62x54r maybe be equal, but the 2 shooters, and the 2 rifles are not at all

A trained and experienced shooter with a well made and maintained rifle...
...will be more accurate placing a shot, having a higher chance of him hitting the center of the chest

VS

Just some dude in flip flops shooting a old shitty rifle with iron sight that has not been well maintained....

... more likely resulting in him hitting just the arm, if he hits him at all.



2) Submachine guns ironsights make the guns unusable

But sub machine guns (or any full auto) are not that accurate in real life. Recoil makes them bounce allover.

One reason the U.S. moved away from full auto main battle rifles.


The MAT-49 (and Sterling/grease gun) seem to get held as far away from the face as possible. This makes the sights a hindrance rather than a help, and means that after 1 shot you've basically lost your target. On Falklands, people rather take the L1A1 for CQB than the sterling if they have a choice. Suggestion: bring the gun closer to the camera.
Yes, sight pictures in PR need to be made more uniform in scale, and more visible.

A good example of this is the K98 sights vs the Mosin Nagant's. The K98 is super tiny and hard to see, but are great IRL.

If you compare the sight picture of those submachine guns in PR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmg4pHH4J5o&t=1810s

And the same submachine guns in Insurgency sandstorm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwwLA0qCLM8&t=1001s

You see that in insurgency sandstorm you get a 2-3 times larger sight. This makes the guns useable at the ranges they're meant to be used that.


3) Medics always get the worst weapons on a team.

What is the logic behind this? Because "realism" seems kind of a weak reason for something that's seriously going to degrade gameplay, and basically means that 25% of your team is going to have a terrible time playing.
Well, with an irregular forces or INS they are not going to be well equipped where everyone gets the best equipment...

...and they don't have a 50Lbs pack to haul gear in.



Of course that 25% (2 medics per 8 man squad) never gets reached because no one is stupid enough to take a kit that's going to get them killed over and over again, just for them to then be judged on their terrible K/D, because that's how this community measure performance, and it's right there on the scoreboard.



A lot of text has been written about how Falklands, Goose Green and a lot of insurgency maps don't get played by the "serious" community. Maybe it's just because on those maps...
Very nice maps...

... I feel the weapons you HAVE to use makes it not enjoyable because you can't see anything at distance.

Its no fun when you die all the time and never see anything.

I think some maps people don't like would be very popular if all maps played only factions with Optics vs other factions with Optics...

... nice guys finish last.

[axytho]

Originally Posted by WingWalker

Seems your are mostly talking about playing INS?



Too much here to respond too, will just post in his quote...

Snipers are more skilled, therefore should do more damage
Yes, because somehow the bullet feels the innate skill of the sniper and this moves it out of the barrel faster. . IRL, snipers are trained to hit chest, not to hit someone's heart or pick out different vitals.

There is literally deviation in this game. The ironsight rifle has more deviation than the sniper. Of course, because this game is REALISTIC (except on damage values) that deviation is only something like 4 MOA for the ironsight, which is 11.6cm at 100 meters. So it's perfectly possible to hit someone in the chest, as it is in real life (may I remind you that the ironsights of the mosin go from 100 meters to 2km).

But somehow this deviation isn't enough for you. What you're saying is just numerically wrong. I don't know what range you're talking about, but I'd say that if your arm is about 33 cm from your chest, an ironsight mosin with a terrible MOA of 4 will only hit the arm at 300m, and will hit chest at any range below that.

What you want, and what the game currently does, is say that every ironsight mosin has half the propellant blow out the back, but adding a scope magically fixes this.

If we extend your logic to other kits, engineers/HAT kits should do 2x damage when manning the TOW, breachers should do more damage in full auto, only crewman should do 200 damage when manning the 50 cal, etc....

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

I think the Mosin Nagant should be upgraded to match the WWII specs. For example, if Soviet forces are added in PR:WWII, their Mosin would obviously kill in one shot the way the K98 kills in one shot. Heck the M1 Garand was just changed back to killing in one shot. I support changing the Mosin Nagant to 1 shot kills. If you miss the first shot, conventional forces will take cover and are gonna know what weapon you have because the distinctive sound, then know that they can rush you and kill you easily.

[Coalz101]

Originally Posted by BigBigMonkeyMan

I think the Mosin Nagant should be upgraded to match the WWII specs. For example, if Soviet forces are added in PR:WWII, their Mosin would obviously kill in one shot the way the K98 kills in one shot. Heck the M1 Garand was just changed back to killing in one shot. I support changing the Mosin Nagant to 1 shot kills. If you miss the first shot, conventional forces will take cover and are gonna know what weapon you have because the distinctive sound, then know that they can rush you and kill you easily.

Can't compare a gun shooting against armoured targets (Modern grunt) vs unarmoured (World War 2 and insurgent grunt) as being 1 shot kill. What you should be saying is that It should atleast send you black and white in one shot to the armoured chest and potentially kill you without immediate medical attention

[axytho]

Originally Posted by Coalz101

Can't compare a gun shooting against armoured targets (Modern grunt) vs unarmoured (World War 2 and insurgent grunt) as being 1 shot kill. What you should be saying is that It should atleast send you black and white in one shot to the armoured chest and potentially kill you without immediate medical attention

Yes, that's exactly what we're saying:

The way damage is calculated in PR is that a shot to the armored chest is the baseline.

So make that 90 damage, to bring it in line with the sniper rifle.

For everything else (i.e. unarmored) there is a multiplier, making it one shot.

[=-=kittykiller2]

i like this idea cuz taliban can one shot (medic)

they have all the mobility and scopes in usa

[axytho]

Originally Posted by =-=kittykiller2

i like this idea cuz taliban can one shot (medic)

they have all the mobility and scopes in usa

The taliban get the Lee-Enfield, and that's already 90 damage I think, because the ironsight lee enfield uses the sniper rounds.

[BigBigMonkeyMan]

Oh right I totally forgot about the armored variable.