G3 rifle buff proposal

[[R-DEV]Mats391]

Originally Posted by mebel

Btw for scope zoom, maybe it would be good to use this equation:

The equation is based on trigonometry.

zoom=tan(<base_fov>/2)/tan(<scope_zoom>/2)
with <base_fov> = 1.1rad

[[R-CON]​Frontliner]

Originally Posted by botfragger

Maybe the difference in recoil between the FAL and the G3 isn't much, since the FAL doesn't have a scoped version. However, even when playing without a scope, I can feel the difference. That's why I'm guessing it has less recoil. Or perhaps it's because I'm playing in 1280x1024 resolution, so I assumed that I could see the difference.

Coincidentally you're correct but like I said, the difference is too low for you to possibly perceive it.

Despite G3 as a powerhouse rifle, is there any possibility of slightly buffing the weapon to match other rifles, especially the scoped G3? I'm not suggesting introducing new mechanics to the game like shift-scoping, but considering how the G3 is unmatched in certain contexts such as layers Canada or UK with their dual scoped rifle.

We are, for the most part, opposed to giving weapon and equipment stats they wouldn't ordinarily have. The Hensoldt clamp scope offers a 3x magnification. And that's why it's 3x in game. Similarly other weapons with optics feature magnifications ranging from a modest 2.8x to 4x on assault rifles to up to 12x/roughly thereabouts on our snipers depending on scope model.

Speaking about the G3 as the standard issue rifle for MEC: In the grand scheme of things there's nothing inherently wrong with either version of the G3 and this is more or less why you don't see us rushing at the behest of just everybody with a strong opinion on the matter. Skilled players already can make it work somewhat reliably in just about every situation, and that's when we know we're pretty much in a level playing field.
What you're concerned about is that its ability to two-shot everytime can be overmatched in CQB with weapons that have 2-shot potential with less recoil, a larger size magazine, better sighting options and sometimes a higher ROF. That entire package of differences/advantages however is very much intended behaviour and more or less mimics the rationale as to why just about every serious military is using a cartridge with roughly the same specifications as 5.56x45mm NATO - omitting the US' currently ongoing switch to 6.8x51mm for a moment - and how modern equipment change the outcome of firefights vs. "Ye Ol' Reliable(s)": G3, FN FAL, AK47/AKM.
We certainly don't want, say, Canada's C7 be an autowin in CQB, but it IS supposed to have an edge. The key to successfully playing is to avoid situations in which you feel nearly helpless if you can help it, and enforce situations upon the enemy in which your weapon has an advantage. Or rather, it is up to the SL to realize this and organize his squad prior to engagements to have the statistical odds stacked in his favour.

[botfragger]

Originally Posted by Frontliner

Coincidentally you're correct but like I said, the difference is too low for you to possibly perceive it.



We are, for the most part, opposed to giving weapon and equipment stats they wouldn't ordinarily have. The Hensoldt clamp scope offers a 3x magnification. And that's why it's 3x in game. Similarly other weapons with optics feature magnifications ranging from a modest 2.8x to 4x on assault rifles to up to 12x/roughly thereabouts on our snipers depending on scope model.

Speaking about the G3 as the standard issue rifle for MEC: In the grand scheme of things there's nothing inherently wrong with either version of the G3 and this is more or less why you don't see us rushing at the behest of just everybody with a strong opinion on the matter. Skilled players already can make it work somewhat reliably in just about every situation, and that's when we know we're pretty much in a level playing field.
What you're concerned about is that its ability to two-shot everytime can be overmatched in CQB with weapons that have 2-shot potential with less recoil, a larger size magazine, better sighting options and sometimes a higher ROF. That entire package of differences/advantages however is very much intended behaviour and more or less mimics the rationale as to why just about every serious military is using a cartridge with roughly the same specifications as 5.56x45mm NATO - omitting the US' currently ongoing switch to 6.8x51mm for a moment - and how modern equipment change the outcome of firefights vs. "Ye Ol' Reliable(s)": G3, FN FAL, AK47/AKM.
We certainly don't want, say, Canada's C7 be an autowin in CQB, but it IS supposed to have an edge. The key to successfully playing is to avoid situations in which you feel nearly helpless if you can help it, and enforce situations upon the enemy in which your weapon has an advantage. Or rather, it is up to the SL to realize this and organize his squad prior to engagements to have the statistical odds stacked in his favour.

I used to have this kind of mentality with the G3. I used to believe that it's probably a skill issue, and not practicing enough with the G3. Or maybe I'm just playing with a 300ms ping that made it harder to engage in long-range battles, where the G3 has an advantage. Until other players with low pings were also whining about the scoped G3, after the whole squad got annihilated by a solo C8 in Kashan bunker because the breacher guy died first, it's also sometimes the squad leader's fault for not demanding some of his players to use non-G3 scopes for CQB. Well, maybe at this point, we just need good asset players to carry MEC and not rely heavily on mobile infantry squads.

[[R-CON]​Frontliner]

A ping of 300 is definately skews the perspective of how effective you actually are/can be. That's not a skill issue, don't worry
Players complain about any- and everything all the damn time, the difference is that they usually don't get the results they want because of improper usage of the given tools. It's what I've been trying to tell multiple others in various different threads, you're not adhering to the game's rules and thus get punished for it. The same approach to the same situation will lead to more or less the same result. In other words: it's the approach that needs to be changed, not the tools.
I'm highly advising against this constant negative attitude, instead of being more reasonable about it. You're fixated on only having the G3 to use, whereas in actuality we're always factoring in that you have up to two GPMG-type machine guns(and argueably the best in the game) at your disposal + a DMR + a Grenade Launcher per squad. It's your job both as squad member and especially as squad leader to bring each individual weapon to contribute to the assault in a manner which has the odds stacked in your favour - like I said already - and the moment you do that, that's you're going to get the results you wanted.