I think this is more of a survey, so there is a possibility of it be moved into game discussion in the future?
Says who? One is an exclusive, unique, and more limited BP variant of the weapon.
Making both available to the same classes would completely destroy any sense of uniqueness, it would only be a 
to anyone who bought it for 750g per piece.
And I’ll tell you why it’s a SMG. To make it available to vehicle crews. Back then, that’s how they handled it.
Before they introduced special exceptions, like with the M1A5 Garand. (Which is a semi-automatic rifle that can be used by vehicle crews, for the same obvious reason as the M2A1 carbine is — the folding stock.)
I was thinking more about making both exclusive to the assault. And we could add that this would be convenient, because it would change nothing to the M2A1, it would just change the normal M2 that isn’t a premium or bp weapon.
And the M2A1 was made for the paratroopers, it just happened that its compact size was convenient for vehicle crews, like the M3 grease gun or the M55 reising.
It would change a lot. It would no longer have a unique feature to it. It would simply be a worse version of the two, with a slightly different model.
You just want to reduce the unique nature of both weapons by making them practically identical - for no good reason whatsoever. Probably only just to validate your opinion on weapon classifications.
I voted on all the projects because if you list the problems, then they all have issues, and for the sake of fairness in the game, they should all be fixed by the official team.
1 Like
Bruh, everywhere you look, everybody says the M2 carbine is the closest thing to an assault rifle the US got during WW2, and it is at least considered a SMG because it doesn’t shoot a rifle cartridge.
Here are a few vids from Ian:
https://youtube.com/shorts/fcPF5eANSQI?is=Fmm1bx7EZNCGMHwC
It is not my opinion, because it IS considered as an AR or an SMG. But yeah I guess “I just want to destroy a weapon for no good reason just to feel better that my opinion was validated.”
Furthermore, I could add that I have specifically mentioned in my first post that I haven’t included the FNAB rate of fire debate, whether it was 400 or 800 rpm, because we don’t have enough material to confirm if it had a rate of fire of 800 rpm. We only see one gun shooting at 800 rpm, but it was also used in the algerian war, so if a broken spring was replaced by another with a stronger force, it could modify the rate of fire. We need more material before doung such a drastic change.
Should the FNAB have its rate of fire increased to 800 rpm if it is proven one day that these were its original specs ? Yes.
Should the FNAB keep its rate of fire of 400 rpm if there is nothing more that says that it was different and if new sources appear one day to confirm that it indeed had a 400 rpm rate of fire ? Also yes.
The game should strive to be as close to reality as possible about the weapons it adds, and not just be another CoD clone that shits on the guns specs just for balance reasons, and where the AKs-74u is considered as an SMG, lol.
Where is the no option.
1 Like
I forgot, lol. Editing a poll is impossible after 5 minutes, and I won’t scrap the polls already there just to add this and scrap at the same time the votes of the people who have already voted.
But anyway, the more votes there are, the more visibility a topic gets, so even voting for a “no option” gives more visibility to a topic. It’s better to not vote if you don’t want to give visibility to this topic.
1 Like
lol.
How are devs supposed to gauge the people against a suggestion if they don’t make it known or can’t vote.
Most of the things here are small corrections, which will have to be implemented one day or another. These aren’t suggestions of “new ideas”. And my question for my poll is “Which changes interest you the most ?”, so it can give the devs an idea of which corrections the players want to see ASAP, and those that can be implemented a bit later.
I’ve already told you that I forgot about a “no option” answer, simply because it wasn’t how I envisioned this poll. And yes, the more votes/likes there are on a topic, the more visibility a topic gets, even if the votes are against the idea suggested on the topic. Ever heard of “Bad publicity is still publicity” ?
And i found that reasonable… but then you are trying to use all publicity is good publicity argument… telling me that not showing dislike is better than doing it… if your state city or residence was running a poll on increasing taxes by 500% you just wouldn’t vote… you would be giving it publicity… better to stay silent.
Of course i expect that when you don’t even follow the basic rules of a suggestion.
What are you trying to accomplish by saying this? There is no need to be against it as they are small changes which involves removing a weapon from the game? Mhm.
Your suggestion is a suggestion nonetheless and thus is subject to the rules of making them.
The effort devs take in doing what you are presenting is irrelevant… removing body armor bonus will take minimal effort yet devs don’t do it… that is such. simple change… people who make polls shouldn’t even include no option… how stupid does that sound?
So you are saying all of these things need to be done… you are creating urgency and suggestions changes.
Your suggestion involves
A. Removing a weapon from the game outright
B. Changing the class type of 2 weapons… one clearly functioning as an assault rifle in game.
C. Making the only TT smg that can compete TTK wise with PPS a semi auto weapon… almost completely making the M1918/30 irrelevant despite its BR difference.
Such major changes fundamentally change the way you play these things in which case rightfully people should be able to disagree.
One begins to wonder why before making such a in depth topic you don’t even consult the rules for posting… obviously you don’t care if devs see it as it won’t be forwarded… there are so many things here too that is basic ball knowledge.
Although the irony being such a topic was posted on the RU forum yet properly done with evidence … and thus was listened to and changed low BR japan balance immensely.
Actually, comments are what bump the topic in which case you are on the right track.
You aren’t running a political campaign… you are suggesting changing gameplay features in a game we all play.
I’m a bit unclear why this thread is allowed in this format, but OK.
Here are my responses (which didn’t fit into the non-compliant format):
Beretta 1918 - No
Scotti Naval - Yes (but it’s strong already)
Type 2a (6.5mm) - abstain
M1919A4 - Yes
Type 97 AT - No
Federov Avtomat - No
M2 Carbine - No
Type 100 MG - No
Lee Enfield No. 4 MkI(T) = No
AS-44 Model 5 - No
Stinger - No
Federov 1912 - No
Mannlicher 1895 - No
Carcano Mod. 38 Sniper - No
M50 Reising - No
Federov Rifle 25 - No
Liberator - don’t care
s1-100 - whatever. Change the text
Mosin M1938 Carbine - No
PzB - No
I’m not a big fan of major changes to items that have been in the game for years. Uptier, downtier is OK when justified but reclassifying, removing, etc is a non-starter for me. Dev’s made choices and people have spent silver and time based on those decisions. Changing things blows up people’s presets and is generally annoying.
1 Like
I’ve already said that this topic was about one thing : corrections of already existing weapons. It is tiring to have to repeat that again and again.
I have already said that this is an order of priority because the things I’ve pointed have already been proven to be historically wrong, and not by me. This topic helps to bring back these problems to light to not be forgotten. But given the fact that you’re so pissed about not having the option to say that you don’t want these changes, I guess I’ll have to make a 4th poll just to include that option.
Maybe because it has been proven time and time again that this gun was never a SMG and only a semi-auto carbine ? There are still other options of guns that were full auto cut-down villar perosas, like the MIDA bigrillo if you really want something similar. And the OVP is already in game, with very similar stats as the Beretta 1918 as it is ingame atm.
I did.
So apart from the “no option” thingy, why are you even complaining ? There is no other problem then, because everything I’m pointing out has already been proven on the forum with historical sources. Should I make an absolute mess with this topic and put a shit ton of links to other topics ?
Businesses do that too, it’s not exclusive to politics.
1 Like
It’s a topic with too many changes and options for too few polls. As a suggestion, you should clarify your points and make more than one post with them.
you may make more than 1 topic
This isn’t a scolding at all, but polls end up losing their purpose when there are so many, so many options.
closed by Guideline 7
4 Likes