Springfield Armory - ORDNANCE DEPT T20E2 Photo, July 5th 1945
CONTEXT & INFO:
This suggestion comes primarily from a Historical Accurace/Reference perspective. The same sort of reasoning that led to changes in the AVS-36 and FG.42/I, but in a way that doesn’t punish players for investing what is currently in the game.
The T20 in-game currently fires too fast (should be 500 RPM), but just updating it would leave the Allies faction with an under-performing select-fire fire compared to other factions. This rate of fire on the T20 came from the receiver being lengthened compared to the M1 Garand.
However: The T20E2 variant of the T20 rifle family had it’s rate of fire increased as a result of the receiver length being reduced back to standard M1 Garand length. It also was built and tested within the WW2 time restriction, so it wouldn’t by anachronistic by that metric:
The main meaningful change for the player: T20 is renamed to T20E2. The model is swapped to the new one, which retains all of T20’s current stats and attachments except for a rate of fire increase from 650 (710) to 700 (770). As far as I’m aware, this change would be somewhat inconsequential, but some people might believe another stat should be nerfed to compensate, which I would be fine with as well.
The primary goal of this suggestion is to pursue accurate weapon representation in the game. This sort of change has happened in the past with FG.42/I and AVS-36, but this change ideally doesn’t nerf the T20 and add the T20E2 in a way where T20 owners don’t have to fork over a bunch of silver and XP to replace and upgrade their current select-fire collection. Perhaps the T20 can still stay in the game, as a slower-firing but easier to control alternative?
Would you like to see T20 become T20E2?
Yes
No
0voters
I look forward to reading your feedback! If you provide any, please understand that the priority here is historical reference, not some under-handed attempt to give the prominent USA select fire a buff. If you believe this change should happen, but the weapon would need to be nerfed to compensate the marginal rate of fire increase, you should vote “yes”, and provide what you would like to see nerfed in the comments. Thanks!
I know a certain amount of people know this, but some people will see bigger number and think it needs a nerf. I don’t think it needs any stat changes either.
Either way, this post is prioritizing historical accuracy, and I’m fine with whatever the community as a whole believes is appropriate.
I respect this however not when it will negatively affect the gun like all other of these types of changes… well thought out post though. And to be honest isn’t near as bad as the 1000+ fire rate on the other guns that nerfed it extremely… however type 100 mg does shine with the new bipod recoil mechanic
If anything it makes it more in line with the fg 42 but i think the lower recoil of t20 might be attributed to the fire rate being lower
Yeah, I know it might ruffle some feathers But yeah, I knew there would be straight-up outrage if I had only suggested the T20 get a RoF nerf to 500/550, and this felt like the best compromise.
So you don’t want the weapon to be historically accurate?
I do think this goes to show the issues and limitations of the weapon upgrading system. On an SMG, upgrades increasing ROF is an upgrade, yet on SF rifles it can act as a downgrade. Likewise, LMGs get a ROF increase but no recoil decrease like other guns get when upgrade. It feels very unpolished overall, and more could be done with it.
After the Type 100 debacle and AVS-36 being turned from the meta SF into a meme, I wouldn’t entirely blame people for being put off by further historical accuracy weapon adjustments given how unpleasant/poorly implemented they’ve been in the past.
AVS-36 is surprisingly viable in it’s current state, you just have to reload more. The main issue though was people having invested into a weapon, and then it receiving massive stat changes and purchasing a different weapon to replace it (AVT-40 20). This looks to perform a similar change, but it would be equivalent to everyone who owned an AVS-36 getting it swapped with an AVT-40 20 when the change occurs.
And I would say it’s the developer’s fault for putting in a weapon incorrectly the first time. People fall in love with a weapon that isn’t really the weapon it’s meant to represent. It’s a relatively new weapon too, so it surprises me that it was implemented half-baked, from a historical accuracy/reference perspective.
I still find it quite fun, but it is sort of a meme weapon now. I think they should’ve given the option for players to refund all of their weapons for the full purchasing cost with such drastic changes like that nonetheless.
People (and companies) make mistakes, it’s how they respond to them that matters. DF/Gaijin responded to (fixed) that mistake in a quite poor manner, so I do not blame people for being weary of further adjustments of a similar type.
It was done poorly, this is true. In my OP, I explain how it could be done in a way that doesn’t punish the player for investing into the existing T20, by giving them the T20E2 when this change occurs, not making it a new weapon to fully reinvest into, like the AVT-40 20 was.
People and companies make mistakes, but when the mistake is highlighted and discussed in the OP, why is it ignored in the argument against the change?
Oh yeah I certainly like this way of implementing such a change much more, it’s far more well thought out. I was just trying to point out why people will be reluctant to support such changes and have little faith in DF/Gaijin to do it well. Given past history, I wouldn’t entirely blame them.
Sure it is a bit unfair, but after having to grind to re-equip a ton of guys with br5 guns due to that type of change, people will be left with a bitter taste in their mouth overall.
I guess, though all someone has to do is read the suggestion to see that, if implemented this way, their worries would be dismissed. If this was forwarded and implemented, Gaijin could give notice on how this would happen in a separate news post from the typical “Here’s all of the vehicles and weapons in the next update!” post.
I’m going to go ahead and vote yes. Though, I do think the best solution is to keep the current one, have its RoF reduced, then have the E2 added into the tech tree (two SF rifles to choose between, just like Germany and the Soviets).
Other than the reasons already stated above, there is an additional reason for why I am in favour of this…
I really just don’t like open-bolt designs on my infantry rifles…
This is just me once more roleplaying a officer in charge of my own military company; and I would not want to give my men a open-bolt weapon as their standard infantry rifle…
Additionally, apparently the T20E2 was designed with scope capability in mind, so we could then also see that added to the tech tree.
As stated in the OP, people who own the T20 when the change occurs would have it changed to T20E2. It wouldn’t be like the previous changes, where someone has to spend hundreds of thousands of silver to purchase and upgrade a new set of weapons.
If T20 was reimplemented with 550 RPM upgraded, it would be treated like a new weapon to research and upgrade.
I would argue that asking for something to be removed is what’s going to keep this suggestion from being forwarded.
I think asking for it to be replaced is rather drastic, and frankly unnessesary, on top of being a already controversial thing to ask for on its own merits.
I personally never understood why SF rifles would need high fire rate, with their high damage they always kill in 1 or 2 shots anyway. Sure high RoF helps squad wipe at close ranges but it will only waste your ammo in every other scenario (and low ammo reserve is THE downside of SF rifles).
I‘d rather historical accuracy changes screw up existing loadouts as minimally as possible. This is the least drastic way to change it, so as far as I‘m concerned it‘s the way to go.
Still less drastic a change in performance. If weapons are going to get performance changes so significant, either do something to mitigate the gravity of the change like this, or offer refunds on existing weapons so you don’t need to change your whole lineup… If you don’t have premium that takes forever.
But yeah, I knew there would be straight-up outrage if I had only suggested the T20 get a RoF nerf to 500/550, and this felt like the best compromise.