Rhino118

US way too powerful now, please balance the AK a little better

95 posts in this topic
On 4/24/2017 at 5:04 PM, Valdr said:

 

You just made a thread whining about how everyone is hacking so even if you had read the thread to see how those points had been addressed your opinion would still be largely invalid.

 

Also, "knockdown power" doesn't mean old timey Westerns where a shotgun sends a guy through a saloon window. It refers to a round being able to put a target down on the ground and out of the fight through a combination of pain and shock. That's something that isn't addressed in the game, and that is part of the reason why we are sitting here splitting hairs over what would be, in the real world, inconsequential differences.

 

I did read the thread. I restated some ideas others brought up because they were dismissed or ignored. Or the argument given was absurdly wrong.

 

As far as stopping power (a.k.a. knockdown power a.k.a. hydrostatic shock), anyone who has followed firearms closely knows that it has been disproved over and over for years now. The FBI even admits their initial idea of hydrostatic shock and "knockdown" from the '90s that led to the 10mm AUTO cartridge was an overstated idea. What you're talking about is best referred to as "rounds until incapacitation" and can refer to both physical stops (hits to the heart/brainstem that cause almost immediate death) and psychological stops (the target gives up due to fear, pain, shock).

 

Does bullet size matter? Sure, to some small extent. But the stats show that largely all handgun calibers perform the same and not counting body armor all small arms rifle cartridges are about the same. This is a good primer on the subject: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Crowmium said:

 

I did read the thread. I restated some ideas others brought up because they were dismissed or ignored. Or the argument given was absurdly wrong.

 

As far as stopping power (a.k.a. knockdown power a.k.a. hydrostatic shock), anyone who has followed firearms closely knows that it has been disproved over and over for years now. The FBI even admits their initial idea of hydrostatic shock and "knockdown" from the '90s that led to the 10mm AUTO cartridge was an overstated idea. What you're talking about is best referred to as "rounds until incapacitation" and can refer to both physical stops (hits to the heart/brainstem that cause almost immediate death) and psychological stops (the target gives up due to fear, pain, shock).

 

Does bullet size matter? Sure, to some small extent. But the stats show that largely all handgun calibers perform the same and not counting body armor all small arms rifle cartridges are about the same. This is a good primer on the subject: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

 

You literally just defined "knockdown power" aka "stopping power" (COMPLETELY different from hydrostatic shock, which is COMPLETELY different from circulatory shock which is what people mean when they say "shock" in relation to injuries) and rebranded it as "rounds until incapacitation" to tell me I'm wrong. That's precisely what "knockdown power" means, your ignorance of the term is your own problem. Then you copied and pasted some stuff you found on google that has nothing to do with what I said. I do not need a primer, and you have not followed firearms since you do not even know these basic terms. 

Edited by Valdr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.3.2017 at 8:26 AM, Rhino118 said:

 

 "Of course the engagements are one sided...your not playing a game based on balance...irregular forces in terms of body count get absolute slaughtered in the real world when trying to face modern armies."

Apparently we weren't modern enough against an AK equipped army in Vietnam, because America lost that war.

 

So, are you saying this game should not be balanced? That is really retarded, because most games are. Who wants to play a game where on

So would that leave a G3 or Dragunov as effective as and m4? only with more recoil less rounds, the penetration test I saw definitly had the 7.62mm AK eat up and or penetrate bricks faster that 5.56mm, always asumed bigger holes in humans would be more effective aswell.

Edited by MEC-Gyver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Valdr said:

 

You literally just defined "knockdown power" aka "stopping power" (COMPLETELY different from hydrostatic shock, which is COMPLETELY different from circulatory shock which is what people mean when they say "shock" in relation to injuries) and rebranded it as "rounds until incapacitation" to tell me I'm wrong. That's precisely what "knockdown power" means, your ignorance of the term is your own problem. Then you copied and pasted some stuff you found on google that has nothing to do with what I said. I do not need a primer, and you have not followed firearms since you do not even know these basic terms. 

Just because you have poor reading comprehension and inability to logic, does not mean I'm ignorant. I've been shooting for 27 years. You seem pretty upset about a post you didn't even take the time to read properly.

 

If you have been following firearms like I have, you should know that these terms are usually used interchangeably by fuds with no understand of human anatomy or terminal ballistics (even though, yes, they are not technically the same). My point is that rounds until incapacitation is a better term for the concept you are describing than any of the buzz words that became popular in the '90s. Especially since the other terms are inaccurate. It's telling that you didn't address any of my actual points and went straight for the semantic argument--the fallback of those who have no tenable position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Crowmium said:

Just because you have poor reading comprehension and inability to logic, does not mean I'm ignorant. I've been shooting for 27 years. You seem pretty upset about a post you didn't even take the time to read properly.

 

If you have been following firearms like I have, you should know that these terms are usually used interchangeably by fuds with no understand of human anatomy or terminal ballistics (even though, yes, they are not technically the same). My point is that rounds until incapacitation is a better term for the concept you are describing than any of the buzz words that became popular in the '90s. Especially since the other terms are inaccurate. It's telling that you didn't address any of my actual points and went straight for the semantic argument--the fallback of those who have no tenable position.

 

As opposed to your "U mad bro?" argument, followed by accusing me of arguing semantics after you don't understand the meaning of several terms, which is the exact time to argue semantics. It's not a "buzzword", it's a term that is used and accepted, as opposed to "rounds until incapacitation" which is a term you just made up.

 

And I don't respond to strawman arguments, the true fallback of those with no tenable position.

Edited by Valdr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-M4-assault-rifle-and-an-AK-47-rifle

 

Seems over 300 yards ballistics favor the M4.  According to this post and another I read online.  So accuracy falls off after 300 yards...and does not remain accurate like the M4 at 500 yards.

More info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, XRobinson said:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-M4-assault-rifle-and-an-AK-47-rifle

 

Seems over 300 yards ballistics favor the M4.  According to this post and another I read online.  So accuracy falls off after 300 yards...and does not remain accurate like the M4 at 500 yards.

More info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16

 

I like how that guy says "AK-style assault rifles" and then says they are all based around the 7.62, which the majority of them are not and haven't been for over 40 years. But that's why I don't ask for gun advice from an investment firm's tech support guy xD

 

If you're going to make that comparison it only applies to the AKM vs. M4, but I think the majority of players in the game are running around with the AK74 and that is all that is available to RGF. And I think that is mostly what we have been focusing on here. It is my opinion that the AKM is much better balanced against the M4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.4.2017 at 3:35 AM, Valdr said:

 

Except that is blatantly false. Once again you guys make an argument by conveniently focusing on only certain advantages the M4 has. You aim faster and you still lose because his ROF is significantly faster. You have to aim much faster, usually you would need factors outside your control slowing him down like a large skill difference or maybe you just caught him off guard, and deal with the ironsights potentially obscuring the target. Two equal players, the M4 wins.


You quoted my "aim faster and win" and respond to it with "blatantly false". Yet you still say, you have to aim MUCH faster.

So how is my argument "blatantly false" if its just about perception of HOW much more faster you have to aim?

I do not want to offend you but I really do not get your argument here. If there would be like 10 shots needed to kill someone then it would be incredible hard to kill someone with a red dot since he can aim easier. But if it's just about 2 shots - which I mentioned - the "skill"-difference between getting killed and to kill is not that huge. 

And there are still so many other factors which others already mentioned not just the red dot.

Edited by EKzyis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EKzyis said:


You quoted my "aim faster and win" and respond to it with "blatantly false". Yet you still say, you have to aim MUCH faster.

So how is my argument "blatantly false" if its just about perception of HOW much more faster you have to aim?

 

Because you are suggesting that it is an even match where the win will always go to the person who aims faster, while I was making the point that the ROF of the M4 allows an M4 user to aim slower and still win.

 

And, you're right, there are many other factors being brought up. Like ROF, which I keep bringing up and you keep disregarding.

 

 

And if someone wants to be offended, Sahara, they can speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your point.

Edited by Valdr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Valdr said:

And if someone wants to be offended, Sahara, they can speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your point.


Being passionate and having an opinion is fine, as long as it keeps within forum rules. People will not always see to eye to eye with the person they're trying to get their point across to and can end up turning into insults and a flame war. I do see a few minor things in the past page, nothing too major, but minor things can snowball. In saying this, I'll quote a few rules as well as linking the forums rules for all those wishing to continue and participate in this thread.

RULES(*click*)
 

§1 Show Respect

This community can only work if we all respect each other. To that end, it is imperative that any time you engage with another user, either directly or indirectly, you show them respect with the content of your post. In particular refrain from flaming, insulting, abusing, taunting, racism, and other similar types of actions towards other forum users.

 

§2 Attitude & Behavior

Poor attitude and behavior are the most common ways a negative / unsafe environment is created and perpetuated. As such that kind of behavior will not be allowed on these forums. Please be mindful of this rule when posting personal positions and opinions regarding topics which could be considered contentious in nature. As a rule of thumb, keep your posts civil in nature, and refrain from making posts that are likely to incite arguments and create a negative environment. As a privately hosted web forum we reserve the right to maintain an environment that we are happy the majority of our players are comfortable with.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Valdr said:

 

Because you are suggesting that it is an even match where the win will always go to the person who aims faster, while I was making the point that the ROF of the M4 allows an M4 user to aim slower and still win.

 

And, you're right, there are many other factors being brought up. Like ROF, which I keep bringing up and you keep disregarding.

 

 

And if someone wants to be offended, Sahara, they can speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your point.


I would like to see some tests. From my experience the M4 will take 3 shots to the extremities, while the AK only needs two at any point.
Disregarding potential damage falloff, the AK will forgive you considerable inaccuracy, while the M4 will punish any shots that don't connect with the center of body mass of the target.
Just my experience, again, it's sortof irrelevant to discuss these things without testing them, because all you're doing is assuming a certain thing from your experience, which is hardly a controlled environment - ESPECIALLY you the observer will be very much biased and influenced in what you notice, if you are trying to get this data during a firefight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Peerun said:


I would like to see some tests. From my experience the M4 will take 3 shots to the extremities, while the AK only needs two at any point.
Disregarding potential damage falloff, the AK will forgive you considerable inaccuracy, while the M4 will punish any shots that don't connect with the center of body mass of the target.
Just my experience, again, it's sortof irrelevant to discuss these things without testing them, because all you're doing is assuming a certain thing from your experience, which is hardly a controlled environment - ESPECIALLY you the observer will be very much biased and influenced in what you notice, if you are trying to get this data during a firefight.

 

So are the numbers posted by 40mm wrong, then? Or are we talking about the AKM now? According to him the M4 and 74 damage and falloff are essentially identical, and that would mirror my own experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think one can speak of OP US fraction. Though I do admit, that it is by far easier to shot moving targets on medium distance with the reddot than with any iron sight. But once the ability exists in-game, that you can change your zeroing on the iron sight - I will be a bit happier again.

I am not sure if this is going to happen or not, but if there will be damage noticeable in a vehicle, that would nice as well. I mean, if you manage to hit a CROWS (or any other vehicle) with (ie.) the SPG, the vehicle should definitely take some disadvantage from that. Like, shred one or two tires, make driving it more difficult. Take away torque from the engine. Make the engine fail for a moment or so. Did it take a hit close to the turret, bam... disable it or at least distort the picture of the optics. If that will be a thing at some point, it will be very balanced. Because at the moment, once you fire anything from a pickup technical towards a CROWS and you do not have a quick hiding spot, you are done. While at the same point the CROWS vehicles mostly drive happily ever after into the sunset or main base for repairs.

I do not want to make it sound like a huge problem, but when I sit in a Stryker and a HEAT from an RPG hits me, I will just take a sip of my tea. If I take a second hit, I take another sip of my tea and and maybe get the AT. Driving a Stryker with that moral and attitude is boring. But if I would know that the first rocket could put me into a check situation, I will certainly move it around a bit different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AKs are inaccurate? Are you kidding me? I will pixel headshot people with the ones on Al Basrah. BUT.... That AK74SU, that one is definitely all over the place. I can't seem to hit anything with it and hate going HAT. But I have never had any issues with accuracy on the other AKs. I love playing Insurgent and taking out entire squads with them. This is from me never using the scoped AK. I can't speak for that weapon. This is based on my 200+ hours and 100+ of those hours being on Al Basrah alone.

Edited by Cavazos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devs have done a fine job with all the weapons regarding their recoil and damage. Stop nerding out with all these stats & d1ck measuring contests. Bottom line, you get shot with a 22LR in real life and you're going down on the ground for sure. Close the lid on this dumpster fire.

Edited by Zylfrax791
Speeling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron sights are about perfect. Damage difference is negligible. Different tactics need to be used for different teams IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just finding the M4 is far too accurate and higher damage than any AK in the game.  AK climb from single shot or FA is decent but there barely any noticeable climb from M4, 200+ hours of game play experience.  I'm sure this post will be ignore by devs and members will just abuse but I know a lot of people in game that also notice the same thing.  It is way to easy to smoke people at any distance with a M4 compared to an AK 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree that AKs (and especially 7,62 AK variants) are noticeably weaker than M4 ingame, chiefly due to higher recoil and worse sights. Higher damage doesn't matter if you can't hit the target reliably.
My interpretation always has been that the INS team has to rely on RPGs, mines, ambushes and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now