Balance will erode everything if unchecked.
For total balance you would need to give everybody the same weapon and make all maps totally symmetrical. And ideally make everything without textures and with simple colors. I doubt it would be fun.
So yeah, a common sense is needed to know when to stop.
When to stop? I don’t know. When WR for everybody is at 50% I guess?
I guess you are right. Though I’m not convinced.
Anyway, one more example.
How does BR stop/discourage me from using meta stuff 24/7? There are more useful squads and BR won’t change this. So again, I want to use something and I’m penalised by a disadvantage.
And that is the golden question no one can figure out, which is why we always end up at that dichotomy of full HA or no HA.
If you want to spam meta stuff, you will always be locked into a BR where other people are spamming meta stuff. If you want to use the less meta stuff, you will be locked in a BR where people are using similarly less effective weapons unless you yourself choose to bring that stuff up to a place where you will be facing more effective weapons (ie. buy a Jagdpanther when you only have bolties). Players still have the choice to use the less effective stuff at a place where it is fair, however, you can also choose to put yourself at a disadvantage if you still want. You cannot choose to put yourself at an unfair advantage though.
Yes this issue applies to many issues affecting the game as a whole however, the devs have given us their stance on how they will do HA which is why I can argue it. We are still awaiting how the devs will approach many of those other issues.
The answer is that X will get moved to a lower BR where you can use it, unless the difference between them isn’t large enough to matter in which case you should easily be able to bridge the gap with raw skill.
A bunch of one-liners and a vague idea of an ideal game, when I took the liberty of writing paragraphs for you.
What you are essentially suggesting is a total rework of the game that would overall change the identity of the game proper. Have you ever considered playing a different game that more accurately caters to your preference?
“I personally believe automatic weapons do not belong in the hands of anything other than MG and Assaulter squads.”
You can be honest and earnest about what you feel without hiding behind historical accuracy as an argument.
But it will never address the points I mentioned. Especially when you switch between using historical accuracy as a shield, while also saying you won’t. Pick.
“The guns will be categorized however I want them to be, and I’ll use whatever excuse justifies my choice after the fact”
It’s a difference of 5 rounds from other guns assigned to gunners, That’s an arbitrary metric to determine if it’s a weapon for the gunner class. It’s a fully automatic rifle firing full sized cartridges, assigned to a limited number of personnel. That sounds good enough to me for it to be assigned to the gunner class.
The AVT should have a much higher recoil as well, I don’t know why they decided to give it a secret 75% recoil reduction modifier. There’s no other select fire rifle or lmg in the game with that high a bonus. If it actually had a recoil of 80 I don’t think it would be such an issue who’s holding it.
Yes it is, that we can agree on. The following is an incomplete list of weapons in enlisted that share characteristics with the AVT: BAR, Johnson lmg, mg-13, mg-30
What do they all have in common? Similar magazine size damage, recoil, usability in assault and long range combat, gunner class exclusivity.
(i mean, there is also the weight that separates AVT/AVS/FG42 from the rest of mag-fed MGs, but it’s not like you can’t get around this by balancing them in some other way should they be moved)
It was a weapon to try to replace a pistol for those who couldn’t carry a full M1 Garand. Tankers, non-frontline personnel, etc
So yeah it was a personal defense weapon similar to a pistol, just much more effective than one but much lighter if less capable than a full rifle
Still doesn’t change the fact that it is literally a rifle by name. Go on, look up the definition of carbine. Actually, here you go: a firearm similar to a lightweight rifle but with a shorter barrel/a short rifle or musket used by cavalry
Besides, regardless of what was supposed to be prolific and what wasn’t, how many M1’s and M2’s do you think were fielded vs StG’s?
The weapon doesn try to replace pistol but give better weapon to echelon troopers, is a Personal Defense Weapon, they are made for defense purpose initially, they added Bayonet, larger magazine and automatic fire for offensive role in postwar because the US Wheelchair marshal think is fine to ignore the Enemy has AR available since WWII
Is 6 millions of M1/M2/M3 carbine vs less than 500k StG44s, did the M1/M2 carbine designed to replace M1 Garand, the main weapon of US rifleman in WWII? No, did the StG44 is planned and tried to replace the main weapon the german soldier has? Yes, that’s the difference
Coming across some Krauts with a StG, or coming across an American who traded his rifle or smg for a Carbine?
Also
On 26 October 1944, in response to the Germans’ widespread use of automatic weapons, especially the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle, the select-fire M2 carbine was introduced, along with a new 30-round magazine. The M2 had a fully automatic rate-of-fire of 750-775 rounds-per-minute.
So it was not introduced postwar, but in the dead end of the war. Slight difference there buddy
I never said they are introduced post war, I said they are still defensive role untill post war, the bayonet lung is post war addition, and the first batch of M2s and M3s arrived officially in Okinawa 1945, so yeah I can bet there is more StG 44 in Europe than M2s, and that’s why the M2 in this game is a time travel weapon
M1 carbine needs a buff to firerate. It’s ridiculously slow, especially considering that the rest of the full size semi auto rifles have a much higher firerate.
