Remove damage falloff

[deferred-impact]

Damage falloff is a dumb feature that works towards the same goal as inaccuracy. Why do we need to address the long range spam twice? Pick one or the other. And given that there is no way in hell we'll convince Sarunas to remove inaccuracy ("but muh realism!!!"), let's target damage falloff instead.

The main reason is that this doubled solution greatly complicates balancing. Bulletspam weapons are incredibly OP in close range and terrible at long range. Shouldn't that be the territory of shotguns instead?

I propose damage falloff is removed, and all weapons that previously had it are rebalanced with only inaccuracy in mind.

[NOTGregory]

I'm not sure about this one. It has promise and I don't think that if removing falloff would completely break the game, but I think bullet spam weapons should still have SOME falloff, because I think it would be rather annoying if you're trying to evade someone and the bullets still deal full damage even if it looks like you're outrunning them.

I do think that bulletspam weapons should lose their accuracy in the same way that the M249 does, with prolonged bursts resulting in markedly less accurate fire. This would make it harder for people to gang up on isolated players in unbalanced tdm matches, or at least force the players to use a bit more fire discipline.

Overall, you're claiming that falloff is making balancing a nightmare, but I don't see how it makes balancing that much harder. You also claim "Bulletspam weapons are incredibly OP in close range and terrible at long range." but the reality is that the fire rate and accuracy of the weapons would result in someone dying even at more reasonable distances, so bulletspam weapons aren't terrible at long range. Even without netting a kill at range, they'll force an enemy to retreat.

[deferred-impact]

Bulletspam weapons will still have falloff even if you remove damage falloff. I mentioned this in the original post. Weapon inaccuracy effectively results in damage falloff (although it isn't predictable, but is instead luck based - not too happy about that tbh) as some% of your bullets will simply not hit. The additional benefit is that this type of falloff can be addressed if need be - via the Steady Hands perk

I am not convinced that inaccuracy matters in a 3v1 gang up scenario. At that point the cloud of bullets is dense enough that the specific accuracy of each gun really doesn't matter. That said i am not against making weapons lose accuracy over time, as it would improve 1v1 scenarios; it just won't matter in 3v1.

However, let's not mix suggestions. If you want to suggest weapons losing accuracy over time, please open a new issue

bulletspam weapons aren't terrible at long range.

Perhaps, some aren't. My point remains, however. The difference between a long range encounter with an AR and a point blank encounter with the same AR is rather drastic. In the latter case, it's quite likely that you will be dead before you can even fully comprehend what is shooting at you. So i suppose i should've said "most bulletspam guns are okay at long range and ultra OP at close range". And the reason? Yes, the combo of inaccuracy and damage falloff, which makes it literally impossible to create an AR that will deal mostly the same damage at all ranges.

It just doesn't make sense to me. In most games, shotguns are for close range, snipers for long, and ARs should be the most viable in the middle. Here in BD, ARs are the most viable when you are touching the enemy - and the gradient is drastic

[deferred-impact]

The removal of falloff itself is not gonna take long - but rebalancing all the weapons afterwards will take at least several days