Why change the ROF? The historical rof is only a reference for the devs, they can place the ROF anywhere as long as it is reasonable with the actual weapons rof+ minor variation.its fine that the fully upgraded rof is 710, it’s also fine that it is 770.
From a gameplay perspective, 710 is enough. 770 would be much closer to fg 42 or type hei rof.
Otherwise, I support just giving the current t20 stats to the t20e2 model,
Because these are weapons that existed and making sure they are properly portraited should be a priority. What’s to stop devs from making a 2000 round SMG or some nonsense out of a historical weapon if we’re not sticking to what it historically was?
I could argue that a 770 RPM is unhistorical. As much as 650 is, for a gun which shoots at 700RPM. I meant: why change the ROF for the t20e2. The T20 shall have ~500 RPM.
The T20 e2 can have the originals stats.
I agree that in the current state, the stats of the current t20 should be given to the new model.
nah no other gun deserves the fg42 treatment do you even think i would like a 20 bullet gun rof get increased? above 700 your gun gets sent to oblivion
The problem is that we would then have a weapon that doesn’t fit the standards of other weapons that have been corrected: base RoF is what represents historical cyclic rate.
If upgraded RoF is to represent historical cyclic rate that’s fine, we would just have to change the RoF of a lot of weapons in the game to fit this new standard.
IMO Personally, representation should allow for some leeway, in order to accommodate gameplay balance. From a representational standpoint, any adjustments to the ROF reduces the representational accuracy of the weapon. For example, a fully upgraded fg 42 1 fires at 990 rof. That’s nearly 1000rpm.
And, there are plenty of guns who do not obey their reasonable historic rpm. Avt 40 (online sources say 700-750), m1a1 thompson and mg 42 are an example.
To me, that indicates the devs place a bigger concern for gameplay effect. How exactly they envision it I don’t know.
Setting the Historically indicated ROF as the base ROF is to me, more of a methodological approach for setting the stats of the weapons. Should I agree with this approach in any way? No. I would consider certain weapons having a considerable ROF increase as reducing the representation. And when counting representation, this game is already at the edge of fiction, with Ho Ri 'production" and frenchman in the pacific.
But also consider this: suppose the devs mistakenly associated the ROF for the T20E2 (700) with that of the T20. But ok, the only sources on the net will mention the ROF of 700: Why set it at 650? where did they get this number from? Well, if they had it at 650, the the fully upgraded ROF is conveniently close to 700. I can count that as a win for representation.
There really is no need for the Dev’s to be consistent with their own principles: as long as they are reasonable with 'Representation", I am fine with it.
Usually, a guns ROF number is not the most accurate indicator of actual ROF. I don’t believe all FG 42 1 had an ROF of 750. They must have fallen within a range of uncertainty; and for many other guns on the internet, the ROF value is often reported as within a range.
As I player, I can’t complain too much: Personally, I would rather see more choice with upgrading weapons: we should not be forced to upgrade the ROF. The M2 carbine is one such example: out of all the top infantry 'semi auto" weapons, why is the M2 carbine exempted from a ROF buff? From a gameplay perspective, that pathetic thing needs any killing power increase it can get… I can appreciate that for its representational consistency at least…
But ok, fix the base ROF to 700, fine. I am getting greedy over numbers. 710, 770. Maybe that’s an insignificant difference or feeling… And no one is interested in playing the number game. i would prefer 710 though.
In my opinion, the type hei auto should have 10.4 base damage, and the FG 42 should be exempted from an ROF change…