Avs/avt>>> fg42

Mess Room
1

Where start and where to end? What i should tell and what should point out ?

Mmmm lately I’ve noticed abt some facts that show some evident kind of handicap when it comes to Germany mains on public matches

Yes… Probably unpopular opinion probably im gonna set the forum on fire but here goes My Main statement, FG42 is worse than AVS and a
AVT when it comes to figthing soviets on public games

ok, hear me out taking the recent 4vs4 that the RGD and U45N Clan Made we can actually comprobate the following stuff:

  • Soviet armor makes a difference when it comes to figthing germans cuz You can actually eat 2 shoots on the body from FG42 which belive or not is an adventage since soviet Sf can one shot easily (forgot to mention armor+vitality perk)

Screenshot_2025-03-03-16-35-41-179_com.android.chrome
Screenshot_2025-03-03-16-35-41-179_com.android.chrome2400×1080 637 KB

  • FG42 have bigger dispersion than AVT and this video comprobates it

Also this not only while hipfiring also when aiming You can see that FG42 have a very sad bullet dispersión across distances

Screenshot_2025-03-03-16-43-00-316_com.android.chrome
Screenshot_2025-03-03-16-43-00-316_com.android.chrome1080×2400 482 KB

0.22 for FG

Screenshot_2025-03-03-16-43-51-156_com.android.chrome
Screenshot_2025-03-03-16-43-51-156_com.android.chrome1080×2400 435 KB

0.20 for AVS
0.18 for AVT

Forgot to mention the recoil reduction that having a bayonet had (5%) which is not to much yes… But every single aspect every single parameter matters Even if is to little 5% is 5% and iremember some ppl saying that the 10% armor damage reduction from the armor was nothing but they we’re wrong and now look how it really affects the gameplay

Then probably the most controversional of all, the FG rof is a curse (higher rof=more dispersión, less damage, and most important of all the recoil becomes harder to control and Even if You control it perfectly that doesnt means that dispersión Will help You) also You Will be reloading… 90% of times

But when it comes to competitive why? Fg is used Even if soviet SFs are better?

Thats a very good question but with an incredible answer too…

All above i’ve wroten above only applies to germans vs soviets (public matches) the damage reduction not having bayonet etcétera on the competitive scene the things change a little

Let me introduce You the T20 The american FG42 is basically same as it’s German brother but with almost not downsides

Decent and controlable recoil
Decent dispersión
Bayonet
High damage

( Also the high damage of this gun can counter and make useless the soviet armor and this is in a few words why we don’t see soviets on competitive scene also having 15 rounds against 20 on basically a buffed FG42 and the existence of THA with 30 bullets make this gun not so Good for Competitive)

But why FG42 is used? Ohh thats a good question too

And it can be answered in just a statement: because americans and japanese don’t have body armor so FG can one shot but as far i know everyone who uses FG on competitive is because they like to use it is not because is better or equal to japanese an american SF (in a little sentence is just prefferences)

But i’m 100% sure that if DF gives a 20 round AVT/AVS it Will be used over the FG42 II.

See ya nerds :parrot:

12 Likes
2

Doesn’t really matter, Soviets are losing so hard.

1 Like
3

Is because the soviet playerbase is Bad and because that DF gives overpowered stuff trying to compesate the lack of any kind of coodination or common sense of soviet teams

That may be the first reason and the second one is because is the preffered nation for DF

2 Likes
4

in the RU forum would cry if they read this lol

11 Likes
5

It is meaningless to talk about faction bias. We just need to ask DF to publish the win rate of each faction in each BR.
They don’t even offer a way for us to do our own statistics.

2 Likes
6

If the soviets are really the best faction and you say that players use stuff based off of how good it is, then why do they have the most empty and low-skill playerbase? Shouldn’t most players gravitate to the faction with the best stuff and naturally make the teams better?

3 Likes
7

this is based on the competitive scene the mayority of players play a faction because they like or the player base migration is on favor of it also some ppl have some kind of… naccionalism to a certain a faction

at least when it comes to fighting germans the soviets have some sort of adventage cuz all the thing i mentioned above and more stuff that i will eventually bring it to ligth but things change on competitive stuff as i mentioned

because ppl preffer other factions like allies or germans which are very populated and df trying to counter that added stuff that breaks the game in an attempt to give those brain dead players an opportunity against german teams that are quite more competent also it affects mostly public games but there is some overpowered stuff that affects the actual meta as the br 3 soviets which by far is the br where they shine and if you see any br 3 competitive scene all will be mostly ppl with the armor and vitality running with ppsh box squads

on enlisted this is different the players gravitate among the faction and its br that have new content like events, TT updates and new premiums or discounts

3 Likes
8

that just will show us which faction and its br is more populated by players with braincells
i mean there was a time where soviets were eating dirt (even if they had decent stuff to counter whatever germans had) but the lack of ppl with some common sense made soviets have a low win rate so that will not show us the faction with more stalinium/germanium/muricanium/bazainium that will only show us the faction and br where the playerbase is focused

9

So It makes sense to give the faction with fewer braincells an advantage.
Making the win rate of all factions 50/50 is a good sign of a well-functioning game environment, and this is also the ultimate vision of we any faction player.

1 Like
10

what? this is probably biggest nonsense i ever heard…

it gonna take a me few hours to process that and formulate an adecuate answer cuz im tired rn of seeing forum shit for today…

see ya tomorrow

2 Likes
11

Bringing up win rate as proof of weapons or vehicles being bad doesn’t prove anything, US used to dominate BR5 matches before they even had T20 or Pershing… Its not the weapons but the playerbase that matters.
S-G-44 proved with data what most people that don’t live under a rock already knew.

Body armour combined with vitality provides a real competetive edge for Soviets over weapons with 14.4 damage or lower, but this is really toxic since only veterans can afford to customize multiple squads with body armour, thus this should be cosmetic only and have no effect.

I honestly still find FG42 II to be better than both AVT and AVS, but the body armour damage reduction should go and Soviets should get 20 round mag for AVT and AVS too.
AVS could also get higher fire rate too.

7 Likes
12

This is based on what you said, that the difference in brain cells between factions is a universal phenomenon, so there is a certain skill gap between factions. And when there’s skill gap, it is reasonable take a balancing act (or remain the already existing unblance).

Let’s think about this problem from another perspective: there is an absolutely fair game, and players can freely choose factions, but for some reason, players have preferences, so the playerbase become unblance by the time, and in extreme cases, the game becomes a carnival for a specific faction. By the way, I think this is the how some of the old campaigns died.

Therefore, if a faction has a playerbase advantage, it is reasonable for the game not to remove the other
disadvantage(wheather those disadvantage are intentional or not) for them.

1 Like
13

Then we the veterans should more often play for the losing team

(I am excluded, I am a nerd that is addicted to German Panzers)

I think a fair and reasonable balance is always something to be desired, regardless of faction preference and win rates.

1 Like
14

My thoughts aswell, 15 round for AVT is simply a disadvantage and makes FG42 the better choice - if not for body armor, because FG42 that needs two shots to down is then obviously in disadvantage against AVT that one hit kills.

Soviets need a 20 round select fire rifle, FG needs a damage increase.

3 Likes
15

I would argue that body armour is still unfair even with FG42 having 15.3 damage because StG44 and MG42 are still effected.
Not to mention Japanese guns.

4 Likes
16

Well body armor does obviously still increase effective damage drop - however close range combat effects of armor are always the most impactful.

Most fights are in close range, close range fights are extremely fast over and squad wipes happen quickly if you are not careful.

STG and especially MGs have enough damage to stay a two hit kill for quite some range.

17

20 rounds > 15 rounds.

There’s no universe in which Soviet SF rifles are better than German ones (meaning FG 42 II, there’s no real reason to use classic FG42 that’s just pure to downgrade to II variant. But he’s clearly taking about II anyway).

Unless you are using them in semi mode. But still Full auto > semi mode.

It doesn’t matter that Soviet rifles are stronger in obsolete mode.

That’s why I have not take his post seriously. It just BS that’s relying more on some minmax sheets than on context in which weapons are used.

FG is far superior in spraying bunch of enemies. And that’s literally the context in which the weapon used for majority of times.
Having potential to OHK (not even true OHK, since that’s 20+ DMG) soldier is extremely overrated. Especially in context of weapons with such high fire rate.

But whatever. If someone thinks that Soviet SF rifles are better. Okay :man_shrugging: as I have said. You can think so. But that won’t change anything about the fact Soviets are losing hard. So even if such opinion would be correct, it is not like it matters much. :man_shrugging:

1 Like
18

The thing is, the main reason to use a select fire rifle over an assault rifle is literally the higher damage, if FG doesn’t one hit kill/down, STG will take the same amount of rounds to kill/down, effectively making FGs obsolete.

2 Likes
19

No, the main reason to use them is to play some class other than assaulters. :man_shrugging: Like engineers, AT gunners, Flame troopers and so.

Yes, AR should be superior to SF rifles. As literally ability to use this weapon type is the only unique thing about the assaulter (/medic) class.

If SF rifles were supposed to be better. Then 9 riflemen vs 4 assaulters + 1 medic is quite significant balance issue.

medics are just gimmick downgrade to assaulters, not comparable to unique classes I have mentioned above

20

I get your point about a bunch of people that a certain liking for the 1940’s Hugo Boss suit men… but use punctuation or capitalization… please

The amount of different “actual reasons for playerbase count” you mention is gigantic and hard to analyze. If Germany is just meant to have more people (largest TT, most event premium and other content + people liking the nassionalists) then ok, lets not forget that becasue Germany would get stomped in Moscow they had literal cheats where DF let them cap points faster than the soviets. If this equality leads to one faction simply dominating the other due to a larger playerbase or anything else, I do not think that complaining about the FG being woese than the AVs will help the enlited’s winrate, “balance” or whatever they call it these days.

yep.