Alas poor Rifle, we knew thee well (Objective weapon discussion thread)

I intend this thread to be a spot for objective weapon discussion (as opposed to XXXXXX r0x0rs or YYYY is a n00bz wepon).

I wanted to start with what I think is the undeserved weakening of rifles. Now of course they didn't suffer the kind of nerfdom that the Karasawa experienced, but I think there if little reason they suffered the changes that they did.

First, let us acknowledge that that the rifle is intended to fulfill a role somewhere between that of the long-range high-damage individual shot sniper rifle, and that of the short-range rapid fire machine gun.

Okay, in AC3 and SL, rifles were roughly 375-400 weight on average, the green rifle was around 325 I believe, and the high end weight one was about 505 from my recollection. However, in Nexus, the low end rifles are already at 400 weight, and the better ones all weigh over 500, and the rifle that Genobee uses, which used o be 362 or so, now is now in the staggering area (for a rifle) of 650.

Obviously, rifles became weightier in this version, so their power should have increased, right? Wrong. The good rifles in SL ranged from anywhere around 290 to 350 damage per shot (there was a fairly worthless one aside from the first rifle which only had 215 damage though lots of ammo, plus I'm not counting burst rifles in this discussion). In Nexus, they've dropped down to 220 or at best around 276. That may not seem like a significant change, but given that a rifle's damage is best measured over a period of time, like that of a machine gun's, that decrease in damage really adds up....err subtracts down in this case?

Next, rifles in SL had a tendency towards wide and shallow, or at least standard lock-boxes. I think only one or two had special locks. In Nexus, all of the "higher" quality rifles have special locks, while those that still manage standard locks are inferior to the special lock rifles in almost every single way.

Though the heat scale change cannot be directly measured, in SL cumulative rifle shots did a decent job at getting an opponent to overheat and start losing some AP, but in Nexus, they never cause significant heat damage at all.

The addition of magazines doesn't hurt them when compared to the fact that machine guns also get them, but it sure doesn't help them either.


So my question would have to be, why did rifles receive so many downgrades? They were never super popular weapons in SL, I really can't recall many people who used them very frequently except for myself (sorry if I've forgotten any of you who did use them alot as well). The real monster right-arm weapon in SL was the machine gun, the MG-800 in particular. Other popular weapons included sniper rifles, sometimes bazookas, attempts with the Karasawa, but rarely rifles. So why? What sense was there in doing so? Now in Nexus we have a machine gun (the old right arm "chain gun") that does the same damage as a rifle in half the time or less, while maintaining equivalent ammo stores. It weighs about same same as one of the rifles at that. So what we have, is a machine gun that weighs the same, does the same damage at a much faster rate, with the same quantity of ammo, and even a better lock box (WS), and its only downside is what? Range? Pffh! Range is fairly pointless with projectile weapons because the further away you are, the more likely the opponent can dodge it, unless they're a tread or something. The machine gun's range isn't even that much worse than the rifles' in the first place. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the WYRM sniper rifle. It too weighs only a bit more than most rifles, and it does 3 to 4 times the damage per shot....including the fact that it has a 2 shot magazine and very quick reload time and a magazine reload rate faster than some rifles. Its only downside to rifles is its Narrow & Deep lock-box, which is hardly much of a difference from the Special types that all the superior performance ones have anyways.

The case here is that rifles were slightly watered-down when there wasn't a pressing need at all, unlike the CNG-300, MG-800, GNL-15, or LQ-15 (hell, the CNG-300 actually lost weight while rifles gained it, at least it picked up a magazine as well and decrease in ammo). And if it wasn't bad enough that they were weakened, specific machine guns and sniper rifles actually perform a rifle's duty better than the rifles themselves.

What do you all think?
(And again, this isn't just about rifles, we can objecively analyze any weapons we deem appropriate).

You have some interesting thoughts Arc Royal, but I do not agree with your assessment of lock types. You claim that wide and shallow lock boxes of the weapons themselves (not FCS units) are better than that of narrow of deep, but in the truth neither is better than the other. It depends greatly on your FCS, and the attack pattern that you choose to pursue. Every lock type has certain disadvantages and advantages to them, which affects the performance of your actions, which in turn means you need to plan out your strategy in relation that of your equipment, in addition to your enemies, surroundings and so on. I am sure you know all that, I am just trying to point out a flaw in assessment of lock types. Nonetheless you have some interesting well thought-out ideas.

Agreed. Sadly I do not the parts of Nexus yet, as I haven't been able to pick up a copy. Regardless, the fundaments of weapons locks would seem to be the same. And while a wide and shallow weapons lock coupled with a wide and shallow FCS can make for a great time, I myself typically prefer something with the ability to acquire a lock from a greater distance, not necessarily narrow and deep, but more in the middle. Of course, it all does depends on what design scheme I am going for. (For instance the method you have described– wide and shallow weapons locks with a wide and shallow FCS unit, I have always found works great with high-speed weaponry) I am surprised by the new magazine feature, and am curious on your thoughts to it, as you know the new system. From the sounds of it, it adds a whole new level of realism to game, which I am all for, but I am curious if it applies to all shell based weaponry, (such as shoulder cannons) or just hand held riffles. And regardless of what it does or does not apply to, whether or not you feel that it should or should not apply to all shell based weapons.

All shell based weapons have clips except for the big cannons.
I dont mind the clips at all, they do add more realism and tone down the overkill that some weapons once had.
My only problem was the implementation of clips on the Chain guns. I mean "CHAIN GUN" that implies a rapid fire weapon that uses an ammo belt. When someone says "CHAIN GUN"
you picture a gatling gun firing away until it runs out of ammo. But, no, they had to give em' clips. Both of the chain guns had 2 big ammo cans straped onto them. They could have at least given you 2 clips with a super long reload between each.
I understand the reasoning behind it, as chain guns were insanely over effective and kind of cheap, but they could have found another way other than giving it a bunch of puny ammo clips.

I still don't like how heavy AC's can use the sawa and is able to equip the heaviest Arm Units and still be able to equip back weapons. I also hate that the CPU cheats, I have to keep remembering that they're cheating when I play them, so I can't accurately judge, if my combo is good or not. They super nerfed the sawa, which needed no more nerfage. Apparently they never heard of a chain gun or seen how it operates since the name itself, implies it's function.

Yeah, Ive been there before.
And the Grenade launcher is so damn slow now.
It was slow before but now you practicly have time to go pop some popcorn and get a coke while waiting for it to reload.
But, when your fighting little buddy Genobee or some other hobo, they fire at you like peeps did back in the good ol' days of AC3.
I do however, like the addition of the spent shell that flies out of the GL when you shoot it off.
They should bring back the huge FLAK cannon-like GL from the original AC. I still think it was the best one.
How many weapons now blow you back an AC length when you shoot them off? And how many but shrapnel into your ass when they hit beside you? Not many.

Yes, many of the weapons have changed a lot since their re-incarnation on the PS2 as opposed to their PS1 counterparts. The thing I miss the most was the splash damage that many of the weapons created, especially the energy sphere from a wave thrown from the MOONLIGHT or any sword with a Plus Armored Core or even the beam sword from Armored Core Master Of Arena. In recent versions the energy sphere was still present but it caused no damaged at all, it was merely a particle effect, nothing more.
I had always assumed the reason grenade launchers and other shoulder mounted heavy weaponry didn't cause the old kick back that they once did was due to technology having progressed over the many years; although I certainly would enjoy the old kickback making a return. I recall having to be careful when firing one of those weapons near a ledge, otherwise it would end up blowing you off of it and you'd have one heck of a time engaging your boosters in time so that you didn't plummet to the depths of whatever was below.

The thing is that unlike back-mounted cannons, people can try to over-come the micro missles in several different ways. Many cores come equipped with Vs. Missle response which can do a good job of shooting down a small amount for free. In addition people can equip anti-missle extensions, though admittingly they are rendered nearly worthless against micro-missles since so many are shot out and your anti-missle ammo will deplete quickly. Next their are decoys, which could be particulary effective if people can master the new wacky controls that allow the use of inside parts with one button. Next, micro missles can still be juked at the last minute. They mays eem to fan out at first and seem to cover a wide spread, but they close in when they approach the target and give the opponent a better chance to dodge. Finally, missles are particulary ineffective at close range, where they're very likely to shoot over or around the opponent.

I'm not saying micro-missles aren't powerful, they are, but that I wouldn't directly compare them to a back-mounted cannon because there are a number of problems that missles suffer that cannons don't.