Faction specific weapons in a future game

Henry_Laurentius
5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
Would you like to see faction specific weapons in a future game? why or why not?
To specify, the US has US weapons, China has chinese weapons, EU has european weapons and Russia has russian weapons.
I'm not talking about implementing it to existing battlefield games as this would most likely cause balancing problems. There already exists imbalance between weapons that might lead to imbalance in teams.

My thoughts is that faction specific weapons would give the feeling of playing for your side and your team. In other words it makes the gaming experience more unique when playing for different sides.
It also increases the challanges of having to learn the different weapons that the different factions possess. 
Why can't we expect faction specific weapons to be balanced? It is my understanding that some people seem fixated on the problem that one gun will always be better than others, and that not having access to that gun robs them of their "freedom" to use that imbalanced gun. In my opinion, having gun imbalance is bad for the game, faction specific or not. What is the point of having a selection of weapons if one ends up being better than others? If it is a progression system to that one good gun, then the good veteran players will be even better as they have a better weapons than the new players. That doesn't seem like fair gameplay in my mind.

I'm all for faction specific weapons as it can help with the authenticity, and not make you feel like a mercenary with access to aircrafts and tanks. I would like to see one modern battlefield game that moves to the more authentic and a little less casual playstyle, with a higher emphasis on more specific classes and teamwork. Since the casual battlefield games already exists, I would appreciate a battlefield that focuses on the more authentic aspects.

So what are your thoughts? Please try to explain your answers.

Comments

  • Noodlesocks
    3452 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
  • Henry_Laurentius
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    That is true. Doing it that way could work, and I think it would be good enough for me. It would make the factions very well balanced in terms of the guns. Of course the weapons needs to sound different. Adding to what you say, the recoil pattern could differ between guns to make them feel a little bit different (m16 pulling up to the right, and the ARX 160 pulls up and slightly left). In that last add-on example there is only so much you can do before different weapons start having the same recoil pattern.

    I can't say I know THE best way of balancing faction specific weapons, but I guess you can do it other ways as well; having a set number of points that has to be distributed to each gun.

    A simplified example: You have 10 points to distribute between accuracy, handling, damage.
    Assault rifles gets 5 points for damage, and the remaining points needs to be dealt to the other aspects of the gun, making each gun a bit different. This can potentially lead to balancing issues if the differences aren't subtle.
  • Rogue-Mike
    296 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    BF3 was the only game in the series that I'm aware that did soft faction specific weapons properly. In that installment, freshly started players would have a specific gun for each class and faction that would eventually be unlocked for use on both sides. BF Hardline attempted to go back to specific weapons for Cops n Robbers and it was giant disaster as they did it to the secondary weapons. Certain weapons ended up being the meta completely overshadowing others. Also to rub salt on the wound, the requirements to use weapons on the other factions required a ridiculous amount of kills (1,250 I think) that basically forced 1 gun wonder mentality. Imo, if a player wants to play with specific guns for a faction for immersion, do it yourself.
  • Art3misJinx
    229 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    This is the only way I'd be fine with it.
  • Toxic_CA
    929 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    They kinda did that in bf3 with the starting weapons being locked to their faction until you reach max rank in that class.

    I like the idea of uniformality but I dont know, theres times where I feel like using a g36 and not being able to use it because I'm not the right faction would kind of be annoying
  • Vespervin
    1361 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I remember playing America's Army over a decade ago and one thing I really liked was that you were always playing as the US army and using their weapons, while the enemy always looked like terrorist using Soviet/Russian weapons. So I would be a US army soldier holding an M16 but to the other team I was a terrorist holding an AK-47. I wish more games had this kind of feature.
  • 4evaBattlefield2
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    No god no! Mirror balancing is the worst and weakest form of balancing. It's worse than reskins. 

    I like the idea of faction specific weaponry. But it needs to be implemented intelligently. The weapons need to be in the same category but not the same exact type. I.E. Assault Rifles as default weapons, but they are tweaked to be just different enough from another to be varied enough.

    Example
    Assault Rifles
    M16A4: 5.56x45mm bullet, 800RPM, Semi-Auto/3 round burst.
    M4A1: 5.56x45mm bullet, 800RPM, Semi/Full Auto. More recoil than it's bigger brother.
    AK74: 5.45x39mm bullet, 600RPM, Semi/Full Auto.
    AK47: 7.62x39mm bullet, 600RPM,Semi/Full Auto. More damage than previous but more recoil.

    Battle Rifles
    FAL: 7.62x51mm bullet, 700RPM, Semi/Full Auto. Lots of damage, lots more recoil than assault rifles.
    G3: 7.62x51mm bullet, 500RPM, Semi/Full Auto. Same damage but less recoil than FAL.
    HK417: 7.62x51mm bullet, 600RPM, Semi/Full Auto. Same damage as above, but recoil in between the two previous weapons

    Pistols
    M9: 9x19mm bullet, semi auto only.
    MK.23: .45acp bullet, Semi auto only. More damage, more recoil, slower velocity, no penalty when using suppressor. Smaller magazine.
    MP412: .357 Magnum revolver. Single/Double action revolver. 6 shot cylinder capacity. Least ammo, more damage than .45. 
    G18: 9x19mm bullet, Semi/Full auto pistol. 17 or 33 round magazines. Same damage as M9. The larger the magazine capacity the less magazines you have. E.G. 6x17 round magazines = 104 bullets, 3x33 round magazines = 99 bullets, but they reload just as fast as 17 round magazines. So what you lose in overall ammo count, you gain in individual magazine size.

    Shotguns
    M870: 12 gauge, pump action. Spread and Range affected by ammo types.
    M1014: 12 gauge semi auto. Same damage model as 870, but has more 'felt' recoil for balance purposes.
    AA-12: Full auto 12 gauge. Same damage model as before, but has even more 'felt' recoil for balance.
    *What is felt recoil? Basically the recoil a player experiences, while being the same from weapon to weapon. Usually because you're shooting so fast.





  • Art3misJinx
    229 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    No god no! Mirror balancing is the worst and weakest form of balancing. It's worse than reskins. 


    Why?
    Mirror balancing makes sure both sides are equally equipped, and no side has an advantage over the other.
    And how is it worse than reskins? The way he explained it, it's literally just the same weapon but reskinned.
  • 4evaBattlefield2
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    No god no! Mirror balancing is the worst and weakest form of balancing. It's worse than reskins. 


    Why?
    Mirror balancing makes sure both sides are equally equipped, and no side has an advantage over the other.
    And how is it worse than reskins? The way he explained it, it's literally just the same weapon but reskinned.
    Mirror balancing sucks because it homogenizes gameplay. It's boring to face people using the exact same weapons as yourself. That's why most games implement unlocks or some sort of variety in moment to moment gameplay to break up the monotony. I'm not saying you cant have fun using the same gun as your opponenet but it becomes boring faster. Overwatch bores me to tears because of that very concept. 

    Reskins are wasted potential. If all guns look different but act the same, then why make different gun models? 
  • Art3misJinx
    229 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    No god no! Mirror balancing is the worst and weakest form of balancing. It's worse than reskins. 


    Why?
    Mirror balancing makes sure both sides are equally equipped, and no side has an advantage over the other.
    And how is it worse than reskins? The way he explained it, it's literally just the same weapon but reskinned.
    Mirror balancing sucks because it homogenizes gameplay. It's boring to face people using the exact same weapons as yourself. That's why most games implement unlocks or some sort of variety in moment to moment gameplay to break up the monotony. I'm not saying you cant have fun using the same gun as your opponenet but it becomes boring faster. Overwatch bores me to tears because of that very concept. 

    Reskins are wasted potential. If all guns look different but act the same, then why make different gun models? 
    Of course every weapon shouldn't function the same. Don't think anyone here is making that argument.
    We're saying if factions had specific weapons that only they could use. Other factions should be able to unlock guns that has the exact same stats, but has a different design. So one faction wouldn't be left with weapons that are better or more versatile than the other faction.
  • Henry_Laurentius
    5 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    4evaBattlefield2 - I think you have a lot of good points, though it is risking/complicates the balancing a bit if it isn't done exactly right.

    Having a gun on one team that has equally worthy oponents on the other teams is a safer route. Ofcourse the recoil pattern can be different, and the sound of different guns must be different.

    As long as the balancing is right, I don't really mind the "gun model" that is taken. But some routes have a higher chance of creating balancing problems if the stats for different guns in the same category (assault rifle, carbine, sub machineguns etc.) differ too much.

    I'm a fan of hardcore with less damage needed to kill a player. That said I wish to see the necessity to use single fire at medium to long range. For me the most important thing in that case is that the damage per bullet is equal for most guns and recoil is fairly equal within the gun-categories.
  • 4evaBattlefield2
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    No god no! Mirror balancing is the worst and weakest form of balancing. It's worse than reskins. 


    Why?
    Mirror balancing makes sure both sides are equally equipped, and no side has an advantage over the other.
    And how is it worse than reskins? The way he explained it, it's literally just the same weapon but reskinned.
    Mirror balancing sucks because it homogenizes gameplay. It's boring to face people using the exact same weapons as yourself. That's why most games implement unlocks or some sort of variety in moment to moment gameplay to break up the monotony. I'm not saying you cant have fun using the same gun as your opponenet but it becomes boring faster. Overwatch bores me to tears because of that very concept. 

    Reskins are wasted potential. If all guns look different but act the same, then why make different gun models? 
    Of course every weapon shouldn't function the same. Don't think anyone here is making that argument.
    We're saying if factions had specific weapons that only they could use. Other factions should be able to unlock guns that has the exact same stats, but has a different design. So one faction wouldn't be left with weapons that are better or more versatile than the other faction.Henry_Laurentius said:
    4evaBattlefield2 - I think you have a lot of good points, though it is risking/complicates the balancing a bit if it isn't done exactly right.

    Having a gun on one team that has equally worthy oponents on the other teams is a safer route. Ofcourse the recoil pattern can be different, and the sound of different guns must be different.

    As long as the balancing is right, I don't really mind the "gun model" that is taken. But some routes have a higher chance of creating balancing problems if the stats for different guns in the same category (assault rifle, carbine, sub machineguns etc.) differ too much.

    I'm a fan of hardcore with less damage needed to kill a player. That said I wish to see the necessity to use single fire at medium to long range. For me the most important thing in that case is that the damage per bullet is equal for most guns and recoil is fairly equal within the gun-categories.

    I have no problems with weapons being effectively similar. I do have a problem with weapons being clones of one another. There are other ways of going about weapon balance without monotonizing gameplay. You can make weapons in a class have the same/similar effectiveness in their intended role, but have each weapon express it in a different way. Let's say Rifle A does 50 damage per shot at 600rpm. Rifle B does 35 damage per shot at 900rpm. Effectively the time to kill is the same. Weapon B may have a theoretical advantage. But that's not taking into account other factors like; Recoil, Velocity, Range, Magazine capacity, Etc. I dont like team specific unlocks either. Team specific defaults and team unique vehicles I'm fine with because they give each team character. 


  • Art3misJinx
    229 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Easiest way to provide faction specific weapons and maintain balance (even in Battlefield) would be to provide unlocks that are statistically identical to the faction weapons. Like the US would have their M16 but the player could also unlock say an ARX160 that would behave the same as the M16 for other factions. At that point the faction weapons would essentially just be unique skins for that faction but for people who want that kind of immersion in their games, that would be enough.
    No god no! Mirror balancing is the worst and weakest form of balancing. It's worse than reskins. 


    Why?
    Mirror balancing makes sure both sides are equally equipped, and no side has an advantage over the other.
    And how is it worse than reskins? The way he explained it, it's literally just the same weapon but reskinned.
    Mirror balancing sucks because it homogenizes gameplay. It's boring to face people using the exact same weapons as yourself. That's why most games implement unlocks or some sort of variety in moment to moment gameplay to break up the monotony. I'm not saying you cant have fun using the same gun as your opponenet but it becomes boring faster. Overwatch bores me to tears because of that very concept. 

    Reskins are wasted potential. If all guns look different but act the same, then why make different gun models? 
    Of course every weapon shouldn't function the same. Don't think anyone here is making that argument.
    We're saying if factions had specific weapons that only they could use. Other factions should be able to unlock guns that has the exact same stats, but has a different design. So one faction wouldn't be left with weapons that are better or more versatile than the other faction.Henry_Laurentius said:
    4evaBattlefield2 - I think you have a lot of good points, though it is risking/complicates the balancing a bit if it isn't done exactly right.

    Having a gun on one team that has equally worthy oponents on the other teams is a safer route. Ofcourse the recoil pattern can be different, and the sound of different guns must be different.

    As long as the balancing is right, I don't really mind the "gun model" that is taken. But some routes have a higher chance of creating balancing problems if the stats for different guns in the same category (assault rifle, carbine, sub machineguns etc.) differ too much.

    I'm a fan of hardcore with less damage needed to kill a player. That said I wish to see the necessity to use single fire at medium to long range. For me the most important thing in that case is that the damage per bullet is equal for most guns and recoil is fairly equal within the gun-categories.

    I have no problems with weapons being effectively similar. I do have a problem with weapons being clones of one another. There are other ways of going about weapon balance without monotonizing gameplay. You can make weapons in a class have the same/similar effectiveness in their intended role, but have each weapon express it in a different way. Let's say Rifle A does 50 damage per shot at 600rpm. Rifle B does 35 damage per shot at 900rpm. Effectively the time to kill is the same. Weapon B may have a theoretical advantage. But that's not taking into account other factors like; Recoil, Velocity, Range, Magazine capacity, Etc. I dont like team specific unlocks either. Team specific defaults and team unique vehicles I'm fine with because they give each team character. 


    It's very hard if not impossible to balance things so one faction doesn't have an advantage in some scenarios or end up being the preferred faction of many players.

    A balancing method similar to what you suggested would work well on paper, but not in practice. Weapon B would most likely be seen as the best or most versatile option, due to how high rpm weapons are more forgiving, as their ttk isn't increased as much if you miss shots. Compared to low rpm suffer from a steeper increase in ttk if you miss shots.
    A good example of that is the suomi and pre nerf type 2a. Both had similar ttk. 2a had high rof but lower damage bullets. Suomi lower rof but higher damage bullets. 2a was crowned the king by the community and ended up being nerfed by dice.
  • 4evaBattlefield2
    25 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Art3misJinx said:

    It's very hard if not impossible to balance things so one faction doesn't have an advantage in some scenarios or end up being the preferred faction of many players.
    A balancing method similar to what you suggested would work well on paper, but not in practice. Weapon B would most likely be seen as the best or most versatile option, due to how high rpm weapons are more forgiving, as their ttk isn't increased as much if you miss shots. Compared to low rpm suffer from a steeper increase in ttk if you miss shots.
    A good example of that is the suomi and pre nerf type 2a. Both had similar ttk. 2a had high rof but lower damage bullets. Suomi lower rof but higher damage bullets. 2a was crowned the king by the community and ended up being nerfed by dice.
    I see what you're saying. But I still detest reskins with a passion. 
Sign In or Register to comment.