Most all UMMs to date (at least that I've played) have no added support for supported, go to places for bug free heaven, so one would assume they'd be big business, even outside of Beerme
There are even several near exact inner (maybe even exact replica) remakes without supported! Yet I don't see them in the serverlist taking up a good 80% of my serverlist.
That good old 'hey! I'm not looking at you.. BAM your dead' sideways bug does need fixing though, if possible.
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
1 -- the dev cost for fixing a bug while introducing a new system is higher than just fixing the bug
2 -- these other attachments then are equivalent to buffing weapons in a system where you and others already complain about how easy they are
3 -- fair enough, but there's still the fundamental issue of differentiation in attachments and balance. If bipod allows the powerful supported positions that the forum experts think is so ridiculous and overpowered, what do the other attachments offer that is a compelling alternative without being imbalancing themselves?
4 -- ... k
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
1 -- the dev cost for fixing a bug while introducing a new system is higher than just fixing the bug
2 -- these other attachments then are equivalent to buffing weapons in a system where you and others already complain about how easy they are
3 -- fair enough, but there's still the fundamental issue of differentiation in attachments and balance. If bipod allows the powerful supported positions that the forum experts think is so ridiculous and overpowered, what do the other attachments offer that is a compelling alternative without being imbalancing themselves?
4 -- ... k
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
1 -- the dev cost for fixing a bug while introducing a new system is higher than just fixing the bug
2 -- these other attachments then are equivalent to buffing weapons in a system where you and others already complain about how easy they are
3 -- fair enough, but there's still the fundamental issue of differentiation in attachments and balance. If bipod allows the powerful supported positions that the forum experts think is so ridiculous and overpowered, what do the other attachments offer that is a compelling alternative without being imbalancing themselves?
4 -- ... k
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
Fundamentally, your proposed fix for supported is saying "If players want to be able to use this game mechanic, they have to make their gun worse".
You say foregrip == current weapons. That makes your entire system a nerf on the entire current set of weapons, a change I'm opposed to in principle.
- Players can opt for bipod instead, taking a nerf on handling in exchange for essentially the anchoring system we already have. The chief complaint of many on these forums about supported has never been "supported players are hard to hit", it's been "zero recoil is imbalanced/ez mode/teaches bad habits". This system does nothing to address that complaint while making the supported/anchored system clunkier. This doesn't address the concern I laid out earlier where the current system places coverlinks only in specific locations while bipods are presumably meant to be placed more freely. Further, nerfing movement, deploy time, and weapon handling is an overreaction to a non-problem.
- The M320 has been discussed to death in the past. Making it a weapon attachment creates more balance issues than having a dedicated grenadier role.
- M26 system is essentially giving a player a second primary.
- I don't see bayonets being introduced for ESRB ratings reasons if nothing else. The Army isn't going to want to show players stabbing each other.
To be clear I want it removed and replaced by a bypod... which could be just one of a few attachments one could select..which has been discussed.. but nope, games perfect
Supported position for reduced recoil in *limited positions specifically chosen by the map's designer for particular angles* is somehow bad, but being able to have reduced recoil nearly anywhere the player wants with a bipod system instead is somehow good? Yet you accuse other people of having no clue about game design?
Lawl you know how a bipod system works right? jeez and to think you played competitively
To be clear I want it removed and replaced by a bypod... which could be just one of a few attachments one could select..which has been discussed.. but nope, games perfect
Supported position for reduced recoil in *limited positions specifically chosen by the map's designer for particular angles* is somehow bad, but being able to have reduced recoil nearly anywhere the player wants with a bipod system instead is somehow good? Yet you accuse other people of having no clue about game design?
Lawl you know how a bipod system works right? jeez and to think you played competitively
They're the same core mechanic. Switching from anchoring to "bipods" changes nothing about the core principles of the mechanic. Any property of one system can easily be applied to the other. It's a cosmetic change only.
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
My man whiplash knows what hes talking about.
You're conflating different issues. The thread topic is "Supported". Bipods were suggested as a solution to the anchoring system. I'm addressing why bipods themselves are not actually a real change to the anchoring system.
When you look at the big picture, supported being replaced by a bipod, along with other attachments including, yes the dreaded 203.. it all makes more sense than just a supported feature for all.. even if the other attachments would eventually come.
Supported vs bipod, similar handling mechanism with obvious changes mentioned above.. limited movement, more than just a head showing.. etc.. and quite honestly the recoil improvement over prone wouldn't be that significant as prone has very little recoil...and I would hope bipod can only be used prone as in AA2 not anywhere like supported.
Same as a hand grip, imo no attachment should change recoil aside from bipod, handgrip changes sway. For instance right now the M16 has noticeably less sway than M4, so M4 with hand grip would have similar to M16 sway..and an M16 with grip has even less..
Silencer makes it quiet, no red dot on map when you shoot.. etc..
How does all this compare to now?.. because very few if any will chose a bipod other than big outdoor maps and or those who cover long alley... where now anyone can support and make shots they normally couldnt ..the results?.. pretty much the elimination of this horrible feature
funny reasoning... you dont use it, ppl that do use it have an advantage, so in stead of learning to use it you want the feature to be removed? To me the supported position can stay... nice balance for snipers...
Fundamentally, your proposed fix for supported is saying "If players want to be able to use this game mechanic, they have to make their gun worse".
No. But let's move on.
You say foregrip == current weapons. That makes your entire system a nerf on the entire current set of weapons, a change I'm opposed to in principle.
Foregrip would give you better recoil, but worse sway. Meaning it's better for shorter range engagements and not as good for longer range engagements. A player who wants to play a more medium to long range role may not choose to use the foregrip as a result. A player who plays more of a CQB role would be foolish not to use it.
- Players can opt for bipod instead, taking a nerf on handling in exchange for essentially the anchoring system we already have. The chief complaint of many on these forums about supported has never been "supported players are hard to hit", it's been "zero recoil is imbalanced/ez mode/teaches bad habits". This system does nothing to address that complaint while making the supported/anchored system clunkier. This doesn't address the concern I laid out earlier where the current system places coverlinks only in specific locations while bipods are presumably meant to be placed more freely. Further, nerfing movement, deploy time, and weapon handling is an overreaction to a non-problem.
It does multiple things. For one, not using the foregrip means less sway to begin with. Using the bipod means even less sway (when mounted). The downside to using the bipod is having no mobility and a needed time required to setup and break down and having worse recoil when not supported. The plus side is having virtually no sway and very low recoil when it's used.
The key here is that people have to be willing to give up mobility completely to use the bipod (no shuffling or crouching). This makes the bipod and supported position something that people who want to play a longer range game would be more interested in. Also, it would be used by less players in general because of this. There may be a chance that it would be OP, but I never recall it being OP in the older games and the fact that many maps are CQB oriented, it would make using the bipod a high risk play unless the player can get themselves away from the action.
- The M320 has been discussed to death in the past. Making it a weapon attachment creates more balance issues than having a dedicated grenadier role.
It depends on the map and how many grenades are given. If each player gets one M320 round and the M320 is designed like in AA2 where they don't explode unless a certain amount of revolutions of the grenade occur, then they can be fine. IMO, the grenadier role with 6 or so grenades is much more lethal. It allows for players to spam shots and not worry since they have more rounds to work with. It allows players to completely control a map if they are good with it. Again, it's the cost of taking the M320 with only one (or two max) grenade round vs. other attachments. Will every player take the M320? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
- M26 system is essentially giving a player a second primary.
No it's not. It's not semi-automatic and If you give the player only a couple shots, then they need to use those shots wisely. Also it takes a short period of time for the player to switch their hand grip to use the system.
- I don't see bayonets being introduced for ESRB ratings reasons if nothing else. The Army isn't going to want to show players stabbing each other.
Probably not, but it certainly would be fun.
Also, I'll add that the suppressor would also be an appealing option for many players. Again, taking away those who would use the bipod or the M320. In AA2, people could use both the M203 and the suppressor. That wouldn't be the case here.
Overall, the system allows for more customization and helps define player roles more. Everyone's gun starts to behave in a way that supports the style of game they wish to play. Whereas today we have weapons that more or less "do it all."
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
My man whiplash knows what hes talking about.
You're conflating different issues. The thread topic is "Supported". Bipods were suggested as a solution to the anchoring system. I'm addressing why bipods themselves are not actually a real change to the anchoring system.
wow you got issues. Yeah against 203's not against 203's with whiplash's system. (Which I clearly state in one of these discussions) That way if you want to anchor you can't use 203, if you want to 203 you can't anchor, if you want to use shotty you can't anchor or 203,
Comments
There are even several near exact inner (maybe even exact replica) remakes without supported! Yet I don't see them in the serverlist taking up a good 80% of my serverlist.
That good old 'hey! I'm not looking at you.. BAM your dead' sideways bug does need fixing though, if possible.
I've already laid it out. Many times. Here are some examples:
Foregrip - Makes weapons fire like they are now. Without it, you have higher recoil and spread. If you want an offset, maybe increase sway slightly with it.
Bipod - Allows you to go supported when prone or on ledges. Must be deployed and folded up whenever it is being used (takes time). Player cannot move when it is deployed.
M320 - Self explanatory. 1 or 2 max rounds. Can also fire smokes or flares.
M26 Shotgun - Same as M320.
Suppressor - Decreases sound. Decreases flash. Players cannot see you on the radar when you shoot.
Other things to consider:
Bayonet - Faster melee kills
Laser sight - Reduces unsighted cone.
But it was already said to be fixed. How do people forget this stuff.
You say foregrip == current weapons. That makes your entire system a nerf on the entire current set of weapons, a change I'm opposed to in principle.
- Players can opt for bipod instead, taking a nerf on handling in exchange for essentially the anchoring system we already have. The chief complaint of many on these forums about supported has never been "supported players are hard to hit", it's been "zero recoil is imbalanced/ez mode/teaches bad habits". This system does nothing to address that complaint while making the supported/anchored system clunkier. This doesn't address the concern I laid out earlier where the current system places coverlinks only in specific locations while bipods are presumably meant to be placed more freely. Further, nerfing movement, deploy time, and weapon handling is an overreaction to a non-problem.
- The M320 has been discussed to death in the past. Making it a weapon attachment creates more balance issues than having a dedicated grenadier role.
- M26 system is essentially giving a player a second primary.
- I don't see bayonets being introduced for ESRB ratings reasons if nothing else. The Army isn't going to want to show players stabbing each other.
Lawl you know how a bipod system works right? jeez and to think you played competitively
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Anchoring could take longer to deploy. Anchoring could not allow you to duck down quickly. :tired_face:
This isnt about tweaking anchoring this is about what you said about these proposed features below.
My man whiplash knows what hes talking about.
Meanwhile, you've chosen to ignore the multiple detailed responses given on why Whiplash's proposed system has its own set of flaws. You yourself have argued against under-barrel GLs all of two months ago: http://forum.americasarmy.com/discussion/comment/26647/#Comment_26647
Same thread, you have this comment:
http://forum.americasarmy.com/discussion/comment/27095/#Comment_27095
You call (Beer_Me)Roach delusional for supporting 203s.
This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
Supported vs bipod, similar handling mechanism with obvious changes mentioned above.. limited movement, more than just a head showing.. etc.. and quite honestly the recoil improvement over prone wouldn't be that significant as prone has very little recoil...and I would hope bipod can only be used prone as in AA2 not anywhere like supported.
Same as a hand grip, imo no attachment should change recoil aside from bipod, handgrip changes sway. For instance right now the M16 has noticeably less sway than M4, so M4 with hand grip would have similar to M16 sway..and an M16 with grip has even less..
Silencer makes it quiet, no red dot on map when you shoot.. etc..
How does all this compare to now?.. because very few if any will chose a bipod other than big outdoor maps and or those who cover long alley... where now anyone can support and make shots they normally couldnt ..the results?.. pretty much the elimination of this horrible feature
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
_________________________
********Bam4D********BE ALL (THAT) YOU CAN BE!
________Army 1980_________
Foregrip would give you better recoil, but worse sway. Meaning it's better for shorter range engagements and not as good for longer range engagements. A player who wants to play a more medium to long range role may not choose to use the foregrip as a result. A player who plays more of a CQB role would be foolish not to use it.
It does multiple things. For one, not using the foregrip means less sway to begin with. Using the bipod means even less sway (when mounted). The downside to using the bipod is having no mobility and a needed time required to setup and break down and having worse recoil when not supported. The plus side is having virtually no sway and very low recoil when it's used.
The key here is that people have to be willing to give up mobility completely to use the bipod (no shuffling or crouching). This makes the bipod and supported position something that people who want to play a longer range game would be more interested in. Also, it would be used by less players in general because of this. There may be a chance that it would be OP, but I never recall it being OP in the older games and the fact that many maps are CQB oriented, it would make using the bipod a high risk play unless the player can get themselves away from the action.
It depends on the map and how many grenades are given. If each player gets one M320 round and the M320 is designed like in AA2 where they don't explode unless a certain amount of revolutions of the grenade occur, then they can be fine. IMO, the grenadier role with 6 or so grenades is much more lethal. It allows for players to spam shots and not worry since they have more rounds to work with. It allows players to completely control a map if they are good with it. Again, it's the cost of taking the M320 with only one (or two max) grenade round vs. other attachments. Will every player take the M320? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
No it's not. It's not semi-automatic and If you give the player only a couple shots, then they need to use those shots wisely. Also it takes a short period of time for the player to switch their hand grip to use the system.
Probably not, but it certainly would be fun.
Also, I'll add that the suppressor would also be an appealing option for many players. Again, taking away those who would use the bipod or the M320. In AA2, people could use both the M203 and the suppressor. That wouldn't be the case here.
Overall, the system allows for more customization and helps define player roles more. Everyone's gun starts to behave in a way that supports the style of game they wish to play. Whereas today we have weapons that more or less "do it all."
wow you got issues. Yeah against 203's not against 203's with whiplash's system. (Which I clearly state in one of these discussions) That way if you want to anchor you can't use 203, if you want to 203 you can't anchor, if you want to use shotty you can't anchor or 203,