Soon ? Do they mean in 3 months or in 3 years ?
In the meantime good luck to any new player trying out the Yanks… especialy funny as their new game pass offer provides a US BR1 squad. As if they were trying to disgust new players
4 Likes
I think there is something seriously wrong with management, this could be gross incompetence but I could also see it being people being rushed to release unfinished updates or something like that. Regardless something has gone horribly wrong i’d “making enlisted a better place” has gone to absolute shit.
5 Likes
Remember when they promised unique AT guns for Soviets and Japan “soon”?
5 Likes
We don’t have an issue with the rate of fire per se.
What we have an issue with is a BR III weapon on BR I.
2 Likes
They seem to already know this:
2 Likes
This is the problem with Gaijin, they either half ass things or they go to far. To basically double the ROF of a BR1 SMG was ridiculous without adjusting the SMG’s of the enemies SMG’s as well. Now there is a HUGE disparity between Japanese level one SMG’s and Allied BR1 SMG’s. Now, they need to buff level one Allies SMG’s just to make it somewhat balanced. As far as I know, there was nobody calling for this buff, meanwhile people have been burning up the forum calling for the FNAB, MG35 ect to get buffed, especially the FNAB, it is completely useless, especially at BR2. Gaijin just ignores some requests, and goes off and buffs shit as far as I know nobody was asking for. 
Bottom line, I’m fine with buffing the Type 100 ect, but not to the extent of making it a BR3 SMG operating in BR1, this was stupid. Buff the BR1 so it falls in line with the Sten Mk II, and buff the BR3 Type 100 to the 800 ROF. Now, unless the Dev’s buff the Sten, why would anyone want to play level one Allies? Or, is it time to drop a 30 round, 800 ROF Thompson to level one? This is the BS can of worms Gaijin just opened. 
2 Likes
cry harder US main
I play Germans DIPSHIT, stick it up your ass just a little farther. 
japan need buff, japan has struggled too long while US allies dominate with OP weapons, keep coping
Did I say they shouldn’t have been buffed? Try reading what I wrote with your good eye next time. I said “I WAS FINE” with it, just not turning a BR1 weapon into a BR3 weapon, all that is going to do is what is going on here, cause friction and more headaches for Gaijin. Poor business decisions made by poor management.
Japan weapons BR are fine, US guns and shermans need to be nerfed to higher BR
What your going to see now is Allied players asking for the Thompson to be dropped to level one to counter the Type 100, or the Sten to be buffed to over 800 ROF, and it just goes on and on with the constant begging to buff this and de-buff that. They solved nothing, just making less people want to play level one Allies.
Keep the thread on-topic and the conversation civil and respectful.
2 Likes
These corrections to the japanese SMGs have been asked for some time now.
But I agree that the FNAB-43 should be corrected too, the rate of fire ingame is way too low:
4 Likes
I am totally fine with reworking the Japanese SMG’s and they probably need it. The biggest problem in this game when it comes to weapons is GAIJIN themselves. What they should have done when they created this game was to get as much information as they could on every weapon, and then create each weapon to the “most commonly used” weapons statistics of the war. However what they did was take the numbers, and some weapons they chose to use the highest numbers they could find, and some the lowest. Case in point. The FNAB and the PPS-43. The FNAB they chose to use the lowest ROF numbers published, meanwhile using the highest ROF numbers they could find for the PPS… Why wouldn’t they both be just set at the “MOST COMMON” numbers? It makes no sense to me. 
So, now we get to enjoy reading posts every day for the Allies to get a level one SMG buff to keep up with the Type 100. The wheels on the bus go round and round.
2 Likes
To be fair to them, some of those infos weren’t easy to find. Some new infos on some rare guns appeared since the game was released (for example, the FNAB shooting with a higher rate of fire, or the Beretta 1918 which was in fact a semi-auto carbine, not an SMG; all these infos are 2-3 years old max). Often I have to go search the info about japanese guns on japanese websites and use translate, and even the gun enjoyers from Japan acknowledge the fact that it is hard to find informations about SMGs from their own country.
I can understand devs doing this kinds of mistakes.
What I cannot excuse however, is the absence of some features that should have been implemented a long time ago, for example: loadout selection for planes, more shell types that you can choose for tanks, and the possibility to select the number of shells of each type that you choose, and also: HULL MG FOR TANKS, OMG GAIJIN THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED YEARS AGO.
1 Like
Well.
To be honest, we now have 3 variants of pretty much the same weapon. With very subtle differences between the respective variants.
Instead of having the wide variety of stats we had before.
I really have clue how is that supposed to be interesting gameplay wise.
It’s quite obvious once all of them going to have the same BR. Only the one with slightly better stats is going to played.
They could at least reduce the dmg of early variant. And put it on BR2.
But no, they made it exactly the same in the main characteristics.
2 Likes
In all reality, even if it isn’t historically accurate, the Type 100 only had to be increased to 550 rpm and traded damage with the S1-100 so that it has higher damage and lower rpm, and the type 100 has higher rpm and less damage. That would’ve made for an interesting compromise.
But no. I appreciate that they are making things more historically accurate, but we are lacking way too many equipment pieces to fill in the gaps.
Yeah, definitely very important to have correct rof of weapons.
I will definitely appreciate next time I see Ofenrohr in Pacific again.