Weapons Need to be Rebalanced - Suggestion

When the campaign system existed it was very sensible that balances were designed around that system. After all, how could the devs expect new players who had bolt-action rifles to compete with their semi-automatic counterparts unlocked by more experienced players? Because of these balancing reasons guns were buffed and nerfed to fit the gameplay mechanics of the Campaigns.

With the BR system, however, it is clear that these factors no longer apply in the same way. New players will face off almost exclusively against players with Bolt-Action rifles and, generally, slower, higher recoil SMG’s. After moving Grenade Rifles up to BR 3 (any rifle grenade weapon should be 1 br above its namesake starting at BR 3), a necessary improvement, some things should be changed to improve gunplay and encourage weapons to be used in their proper mechanical roles by players.

  1. All Bolt-Action Rifles should be moved to BR 2. The only fair exception to this rule should be the Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk1 since it has a 10rd magazine. Even then I think it should be moved down because of the next suggestion.
  2. All rifles should deal roughly equivalent damage. Yes. Whether the devs decide to make every Semi-Automatic weapon deal 12 damage or 20+, any rifle-caliber weapon should deal rifle-caliber damage, generally. Small differences in weapons to represent different muzzle velocities may be fair but they fire the same round.

The M1 Garand and the M1903 Springfield fire the same 30.06 cartridge. The German Karabiner 98k and Gewer 41fire the same 7.92 Mauser cartridge. All Russian rifles fired the 7.62x54 and continued to do so until the adoption of the SKS and AK-47. Japan used the same 6.5mm cartridge in their rifles.

  1. Recoil adjustments need to be made. The number of laser beams coming from players standing upright and leaning back and forth is insane.

The biggest insult on this issue is the FG-42 which has the same recoil as the M2 Carbine despite firing a round over twice as powerful. It should have, at a minimum, a similar recoil to the M1 Garand when standing. The tradeoff between guns like the M2 Carbine and the FG-42 should be the damage and the recoil, not allowing one to be a laser beam at long range. The FG-42 should have a damage per round of ~22.1 and the M2 Carbine is probably fair around 11-12 as is but the Carbine should be more controllable, making it better in close-range full-auto engagements, but less equipped at longer ranges.

  1. MG’s need to be reworked entirely. Most people, not even most soldiers, would not be capable of shouldering a LMG, definitely not accurately and not while leaning back and forth. LMGs should not be able to be shouldered as a weapon class rule unless bipoded otherwise, they should have to be hip-fired with the accuracy debuff that comes with it.

The Vickers and Bren weigh 10.4kg(~23lb) and 8.3kg(~18lb) respectively. Both were designed to be used with the Bipod almost exclusively. The only “LMG” in the allies tree designed to be shouldered was the BAR 7.2kg (~16lb), which was designed to mainly be hip-fired anyway as it was created for walking fire. The biggest offender I can think of is the MG 34 with Patronentrommel 34 magazine, weighing in at a beefy 15.1kg(~33lb) The MG 34 and 42 are not far behind and the lightest German MG is The Breda Mod. 30 and ZB-26 at 10kg.

  1. SMGs should have worse horizontal and vertical inaccuracy. I am not suggesting that the recoil on SMGs should be nerfed, but their general inaccuracy should be worse. These guns were designed specifically for CQC and using them at long range should be more punishing. Over 20m it should be very difficult to hit a target at full auto. A mechanic that could work here to incentivize tap-firing at long ranges is to make it so bullets fired by tapping generally fly straight while in full auto the inaccuracy increases as the gun fires.
  2. Sniper play needs a complete rework from a game design perspective. Too often you see players not contributing to their team with sniper squads, opting to sit back and not play the objective. I cannot figure out how to fix this aside from removing rewards for camping at long range. That would make it so players who take snipers into battle would use them slightly more often to take out high-value targets or sneak around the map. But that’s a slippery slope.

Edit: Another method to balance snipers would be to turn them into recon squads. Give them points for scouting or assists for kills near scout markers and kills on tanks, but remove the long-range kill bonus. Replace the long-range kill award with a scouted target award. This should reward productive gameplay.

I think that this suggestion if implemented, would make gunplay significantly more rewarding at higher BRs and would fix some of the problems the community is facing. Rifles, as the mainstay of the armies, should be the most sought-after weapons, able to take down enemies in 1 hit. SMGs should continue to reward aggressive play but punish passive play. MG’s should reward holding down chokepoints but punish aggression. ARs should get the best of damage and the worst of Recoil when used in full auto (FG-42 and STG-44.) The hardest weapon to get a read on in the meta is the sniper, in theory, it should reward slow play and strategy but in practice, it rewards non-contribution to the team.

Thank you all for coming to my Ted Talk. I will reply to further suggestions in the comments and edit the post as needed imo.

Edit 1: Edit made to Soviet rifle cartridge information due to error.

Personally I think current balance between semi automatic and bolt action rifles is fine. I don’t feel one is superior but just different. No need to change it.

Agree. Machine Guns should be completely reworked.
I’ve been suggesting this for like 2y now.

I agree sniper class needs a rework but not the way you propose. You will just penalise players for sniping instead of making it useful.
Personally I’d give them some kind of recon ability so they can help teammates.

3 Likes

I think it was fine under the campaign system where you needed to balance for newer players. But now you can expect a roughly equivalent skill group in a BR. Thus my opinion is it should be rewarding and incentivizing to upgrade to all Semi’s. Not penalizing by reducing your TTK at range. It incentivizes the kind of play SMG’s are better for.

And with snipers I don’t want to penalize. But perhaps reworking them so that instead of a range kill bonus they get a reward for marketing the most targets. Reclass them as recon squads and give them bonuses for marking tanks, infantry, strategic construction and fortifications etc… allow them to provide more detailed information with markers too.

How does that sound?

Then you would essentially remove BA rifles from mid-high BR matches. Because why would anyone play with inferior weapon (except for roleplay)?
Imo all weapon classes should remain competitive.

1 Like

Didn’t say you couldn’t take them. Remember they’d still have the same 1 shot capability as Semi’s and Semi’s still down in 1 shot at range. So it changes a lot less than you think.

From what I understand you want to make BA and SA rifles do the same damage because they fire the same bullet. Then BA rifles would be next to useless except for their accuracy.

Accuracy would be about the same regardless. But we have the BR system now. Is part of the point in a BR system to make it rewarding to take worse weapons up in tier for players that want to have that fun? We could even add some rewards for competing at high tier with a lower tier gun.

Also an incentive to use BA’s at BR 3 is that they get grenade launchers. But at BR-4 you’re playing against AR’s anyway so why wouldn’t you want a competitive semi?

meanwhile darkflow adds one like a boss

what’s the “high value target” according to you?

So… basically make BA rifles fully obsolete by mid tier? No thanks.

1 Like

in my opinion, here comes the more psychological aspect, if you know that you basically have one shot, you will be more precise, I noticed that when I play SA I make more lazy shots, which happens less when playing BA, so you know.

and then if you’d simulate that behaviour to AI, you could potentialy mix all brs together and have balanced fight.

2 Likes

Huge MG buff then…
20 damage on MGs would be very sweet for them

1 Like

But very inaccurate unless bipoded. So deadliest weapon but extremely niche in usefulness.

1 Like

my biggest dream since I’ve been here is for weapons to behave the way they’re supposed to.

when I hit someone with a rifle bullet and they keep walking as if nothing happened, it bothers me.

I would like the weapons to behave in a real way and do real damage, and redirect all the balance related to them somewhere else. e.g. recoil, handling, zoom etc.

we have pretty much realistic vechicle behaviour why can’t we have guns too???

1 Like

I may have this wrong - but it sounds like to rebalance the weapons, you want to increase the imbalance between them?

That would surely just make higher tiers even sweatier and meta driven - killing any variety in gameplay?

I’d argue they already are obsolete by mid tier. The only Bolt-Action that people are saying should remain above BR 3 is the Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk.1 and that’s because of its 10rd magazine.

IRL bolts actions were made effectively obsolete by the success of the Garand and other Semi-Autos and I think that should be represented in game.

Mind you bolts won’t become ineffective, they would still have 1 shot capability and may even be preferred by people who have a hard time figuring out how to control the recoil on their semi-autos.

As of now semi’s are stuck in a position unable to compete with Bolts at range or ARs in the mid to close range. Giving them the same damage makes Semis competitive where right now they’re only a marginal upgrade from BAs.

How am I advocating increasing the imbalance? I’m advocating giving weapons roles and making them the most effective at fulfilling those roles.

Yes, but by increasing the gap between effectiveness of them.

I know you say they’d still be one shot kills etc, but realistically - who’s going to take a bolt action to a semi auto fight, if a semi auto is just as easy to one shot kill with.

I like to mix them up in my squads by range - I take bolt action engineer squad for longer range and a semi auto engineer squad for shorter range, so they are already fulfilling different roles. If they both did the same damage at the same range - I wouldn’t be doing this - I’d only have semi auto.

However - I do agree MGs and snipers could do with work to make them more effective in specific roles.

1 Like

I keep getting told by people that the Semis are already effectively one shots at close range. If that’s the case then why? As close range they become less effective than SMG’s which can put down more lead faster and at long ranges they get outclassed by BAs and are on par with ARs.

Pre-merge the logic was because new players were forced to play with BAs to balance against Semi and AR veteran players. Now it just doesn’t make sense to have Semis get the worst of all worlds in terms of capability. It makes mid-tier annoying because in Downtiers you get one shot and in uptiers you get sharks with laser beams.

Semi auto fills a gap between SMG and BA. Semi auto has much better effective range than SMG, and BA much better range again. Especially post merge I like to have squads for various range of maps.

Personally I only use AR on semi unless I end up at close range - but not used them loads to be honest.

1 Like