Weapons becoming absolete after grinding

Mess Room
1

I found that after grinding higher level weapon, older weapon don’t see the light. Just sit in the corner of warehouse and slowly being covered with dust.

Like, have you ever used MG13 or zb-26 after getting MG34? Or PPD after getting PPSh? Etc… Yeah sure you can technically use it even after. But there are no reason to do so.

Is it only me who think Darkflow should give some reason to consider using older weapon even after having next tier weapon? In Devs percpective, what a waste of effort on gun modeling and everything if there will be just thrown once after getting higher tier weapon.

5 Likes
2

Depends on the Squad setups. I have different MG squads as i do with Scouts as two examples.
Long range MG support im using ZB instead…But Mid range to close assault im using MG32 and both has different setup with soldiers to.
And the Scout team im using MKB with Engineer semi action weaponry and smg and the other Sniper rifles with Radioman and AT which both have long range BAs instead

3

this is the problem with grinding games what’s the point of leveling if u get shit tier weapons at top tier

3 Likes
4

not really. As you grind you get better equipment so making the older one obsolete it makes sense. What would be the point to grind if the new stuff werent better than the older ones?

2 Likes
5

Imagine how frustrated everyone was once they started using machine guns and tanks IRL

1 Like
6

Ideally higher tier kit is perhaps stronger overall, but the older kit is still preferable in at least some situations, so keeping it around or pulling it out every once and awhile makes sense, even if you replace most of it.

I think the first three axis tanks in normandy actually illustrate this fairly well.

The first thing you get is the Puma, which offers excellent mobility and reasonable anti infantry firepower, but lacks in protection or antitank capabilities.

The next one is a panzer with better protection and excellent HE, but only marginally better armor penetration, and a massive sacrifice in mobility.

Then you get tank number 3, which has even better armor, and finally a gun that can really punch through allied tanks in a way the others struggle to. However, it can’t clear rooms with HE splash the way the last one can, and it can be difficult to get into position or avoid being flanked by infantry.

So, with those vehicles, if you have all three available in a match somehow, any one of them will likely end up being the “optimal” pick at least some of the time, even if there is still a clear progression of “Bigger and badder” as you go along the tree.

Another example IMO is the winchester vs the SVT in moscow, at least when neither rifle is upgraded. The SVT has a much better fire rate and magazine size, of course, but it actually has accuracy problems even at mid range, and often downs instead of killing. The winchester on the other hand has excellent accuracy and high per shot damage, with a fire rate that is “good enough” for mid range combat most of the time. So, while the SVT can be more powerful, and usually is, there are times where the winchester is still a better choice.

8 Likes
7

the balance disparity between early and late gear is horirble

7 Likes
8

Be careful, i’m not saying we should abolish proletariats from evil grinding system. I agree that the linear progress system motivates people to spend more time in game, grind and pay money. And it is essential to keep game alive. But too much gap between lower and higher is not good for the game.

In game company perspective, if each gun has their uniqueness, people may buy more squad slots to use difference weapon sets depanding on the situation.

1 Like
9

Well the gap between early and late weapons is big cause the MM isnt still in place. Otherwise early-mid-late weapons are fine imo. You simply cannot make a PPD with a 20mag compatible or unique in comparison to a Ppsh-41. So regardless of the slots it wont make any sense to use an early war gun instead of a late one. Same goes for rifles and MGs. Kinda like irl. Guns irl progress and the new ones replace the older. Same as WW2 and same as in game

10

Don’t worry: since we don’t get enough bronze orders, older (and cheaper) max star weapons are sometimes better than late unlocks…

3 Likes
11

Actually 50/40/10 that a mid/ late gun is either better (T-50 or Panther), sidegrade (e.g. Thompson/ M3G or Crusader) or worse (looking at the AT rifle nade launchers in France) than the low or mid-level stuff.

12

I think it depend on the level of upgrade. Now weapon need Silver order to buy so it is really expensive to equip everyone with top gear. A fully upgraded MP40 can do better than standard MP35/I.
So instead of replacing everything at once (which cost a tons of silver). I think player realistically keep fully upgraded gear until they have enough silver for an overhaul. It is like how the army slowly phase out obsolete weapon.

1 Like
13

especially true about Beretta M1 :v
couple of level away from finishing the faction and all my assaulter still using fully upgraded Beretta M1

2 Likes
14

Sometimes too its nice tonjust use weapons you like.
I have 4 times more rifle kills right now over smg and lmg etc because I prefer to use Bolts and Semis even when at times the meta in many battles is automatics.
As well, I just love the bolt play in this game and they can be valid when used in the right situations.
My primary reason for maxing my slots in game was so I could run dedicated squads that each have a purpose on the maps I come up against.
I think beyond the Base starter weapons everything else can have a purpose.

1 Like
15

Not all older weapons are obsolete after grinding like I still use my T-34-85(gold card) in Berlin instead of the IS-1 as my main tank alongside DPM for some squads and my MG squad use DT-29.

Still using SVT-38s in Moscow and Mosin snipers too.

Tbf many of the lower level weapons are just garbage especially tanks like who in the right mind would use a T-60 over better tanks like BT-7, T-50 and T-28 or a Puma over a Panzer IV and Panther. Atleast small arms are more understandable like one still want to use a bolt action but vehicles eh it happens that they will be obsolete later on.

16

I think one of the reasons for it that some of the older gear fits more nieche uses, but because we cant adapt our loadouts to the map we get they often go unused even if they would be better

For example a lot of berlin is close quarters brawling where semis are better, but some maps(for example seelow) have very long ranges where BA rifles might be more useful

3 Likes
17

bruce_leroy

18

I kept the Breda on Tunisia, maxed out, its just so much fun. I call it “railgun”, reminding me of the good old days as Quake 3 Arena was fun.

19

World War Two was mostly fought with bolt actions. Unfortunately once everyone levels up it becomes a game of who has more fully automatic guns which is not how it should be. There should be more incentive like you said to use lower tier weapons. In real life soldiers didn’t have the luxury to be fully equipped with svts and fg42s. I think some of those guns should be squad restricted for specific roles to make it more realistic.

20

Indeed - such sentiments have been expressed by many players for a year or more - but the “historical equipment” horse bolted (sic) long ago for Enlisted :confused:

1 Like