DUST Search - [Feedback & Suggestion] Assault Rifles as sidearms.

Jathniel wrote:

The popular viewpoint seems to be that the assault rifle, as a utility weapon, should be able to beat every niche weapon hands down, whether or NOT it's beating that niche weapon in the niche weapon's element.

Niche roles find themselves in often frustrating circumstances once they are in mid-range situations, which is almost all the time.

Essentially, the assault rifle role has an easier time adapting offensively, than the niche roles, and I believe this is a problem. If the AR becomes a sidearm, then everyone will always be able adapt offensively and beat everyone.
No more excuses. No more "your weapon is OP" this, "you coward" that. Everything will boil down to that particular player's style and skill, not what he is forced to find himself in.

Assaults can close range on snipers, and can increase range on CQCers, way too easily, depending on the skill and circumstances of the niche players.

And what tends to happen after that range adjustment? The niche player has next to no means of an *even* fight anymore.

We make the assault rifle a sidearm, as has been explored with the 'Black Eagle', and the niche players will at least have a better opportunity for an equal exchange when they are caught out of their element.

The same can be said for assault players, they can have a niche weapon on their main slot, and be somewhat prepared in case they are caught out of their element by a niche player.
They see heavies, and can swap to their shot guns, then back to their ARs. While others who are dedicated counter-snipers, can attempt to make the counter snipe, then switch back to their AR.

There is little opportunity for equal firing exchange currently, and I think that's what's frustrating a lot of people... Hence why they start calling for weapon nerfs, or changes to the redline to prevent perceived "abuse".

People want an equal opportunity on the battlefield.
Making Assault Rifles a sidearm, allows the weapon to serve everyone equally, as it was meant to.

EDIT: Potentially OP builds can be avoided if AR cpu costs are kept as is.

SECOND EDIT: After some discussion, and input. It would appear there is a growing consensus for this. In particular, side-arm carbine variants of current ARs.
ARs that function like the current ones, that suffer a clip cost, of about 50% capacity.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kray Dytt THE DOLLARS 25	Posted - 2013.03.18 13:52:00 - [1] - Quote Jathniel wrote: The popular viewpoint seems to be that the assault rifle, as a utility weapon, should be able to beat every niche weapon hands down, whether or NOT it's beating that niche weapon in the niche weapon's element. Niche roles find themselves in often frustrating circumstances once they are in mid-range situations, which is almost all the time. Essentially, the assault rifle role has an easier time adapting offensively, than the niche roles, and I believe this is a problem. If the AR becomes a sidearm, then everyone will always be able adapt offensively and beat everyone. No more excuses. No more "your weapon is OP" this, "you coward" that. Everything will boil down to that particular player's style and skill, not what he is forced to find himself in. Assaults can close range on snipers, and can increase range on CQCers, way too easily, depending on the skill and circumstances of the niche players. And what tends to happen after that range adjustment? The niche player has next to no means of an even fight anymore. We make the assault rifle a sidearm, as has been explored with the 'Black Eagle', and the niche players will at least have a better opportunity for an equal exchange when they are caught out of their element. The same can be said for assault players, they can have a niche weapon on their main slot, and be somewhat prepared in case they are caught out of their element by a niche player. They see heavies, and can swap to their shot guns, then back to their ARs. While others who are dedicated counter-snipers, can attempt to make the counter snipe, then switch back to their AR. There is little opportunity for equal firing exchange currently, and I think that's what's frustrating a lot of people... Hence why they start calling for weapon nerfs, or changes to the redline to prevent perceived "abuse". People want an equal opportunity on the battlefield. Making Assault Rifles a sidearm, allows the weapon to serve everyone equally, as it was meant to. EDIT: Potentially OP builds can be avoided if AR cpu costs are kept as is. SECOND EDIT: After some discussion, and input. It would appear there is a growing consensus for this. In particular, side-arm carbine variants of current ARs. ARs that function like the current ones, that suffer a clip cost, of about 50% capacity. Turning an AR into a sidearm for everyone to use to complement their niche build would defeat the purpose of niche builds I think. The AR is meant to be decent at (almost) everything, without being great at one thing. Niche builds/weapons are meant to be great at a particular thing, offset by being not-so-great at one or more other things. Allow people to combine the two and you basically have a build that's good at everything and great at one particular thing. Sure, if everyone can do this it's balanced, in a way. And yes, the AR would cost more CPU/PG than regular sidearms so you'd have to make some concessions in your loadout. But you'd still have the best of both worlds. As an Assault player, I lose to HMG's and Shotguns when I get too close. I lose to Snipers if I'm not close enough or fail to spot them. But, when they are out of their element, I win. Now give them an AR, and it's either lose, or have an equal chance. That just doesn't make sense. Sure, I could equip either a Sniper rifle or a Shotgun as well... but apart from not wanting too (as in, I prefer to play one role at a time), I think this would just diminish the relevance of weapon choices and specialisation. Basically what your suggesting is people having 2 primary weapons. I don't think that's a good idea for a whole lot of reasons, but the most important reason is that it takes away the significance of niche roles. It would turn everyone in to an assault type with an added specialisation. Sidearms are, as I see it, an extra "emergency" weapon. Something to fall back on if you either run out of ammo or when your primary weapon simply doesn't suit the situation. Conceptually they are light weapons that don't burden you too much because you will hardly ever use them. But boy are you glad you have one when in a fight and out of ammo on your primary gun. Or when you're sniping and you see a red dot creeping up behind you. Now, adding sidearm "variants" of AR's is something else. Basically, it's adding more types of sidearms. I'd support that, if they adhere to the sidearm concept. So a sidearm AR would have to be much smaller and lighter than a proper AR, which means it would probably have reduced range and accuracy as well as a smaller clip