it really isn’t if you see a guy with body armor and you know your smg/ semi auto takes an extra shot to kill them the next logical thing to do is aim a bit higher but than again its a skill issue. saying its nonsensical and unbalanced is hilarious when they actually used it in ww2 and the only people placing it in all their squads are veterans or people that actually looked into how the armor works
please continue to cry about body amor being unbalanced
please continue to reply if you guys are that butt hurt about body armor giving a 10% buff to a bunch of noobs.
thank you please have a good rest of your day
I do want to say it should only affect pistol rounds and not rifle rounds and slower movement speed and but again thats up to the devs to add a update to it but moving guns around and buffing them to counter body armor that only veterans use most of the time isn’t the the way to go because newer players will suffer more from getting 1 shotted all the time
Bite me, you pretentious little punk. Obviously, if you see someone with 7 or 8 man squad all using the body armor, then you must hit 7-8 headshots consecutively and even if one is an accidental bodyshot, then you are immediately fucked because then that guy or one of his AI turns around to shoot you 'cuz obviously they wouldn’t be moving or shooting back and that many consecutive headshots is definitely easy especially considering the low velocity present in most SMGs which are also the weapons that are most affected by this. Get your head out your ass
3 Likes
I have 4xBR5 lineup
I brought up Soviet SF. From BR5. In a topic that discusses that armor is problematic. What the fuck do you even want to convey by pointing out the Soviets don’t face armor? Thats exactly my point. Soviet high tier SF Rifles 1 shot enemies at discances similar to all other nation SF - WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTION OF THE TYPE HEI AUTOMATIC. On top of that I cannot even begin to decipher what dark and empty places your mind had to wander to to even bring up SMGs into that converstation as its a completely different weapon type.
Then if you want more examples then consider that a weapon has to have 15 damage at a given range to 1 shot body armor + vitality. This for example cuts off FG42 II 1 shot range from 65m to mere 15m. Good luck hitting 9 headshots with 0.22 dispersion at 60m range in time window small enough that you don’t get shot at back. Then also factor that if you were to 2 shot an enemy by aiming at the body you have to put in double the ammo count, which quickly makes using 20 round mags awful.
AND EVEN THEN - explain to me how is it fair that you have to hit 4x smaller hitbox compared to your enemy to have equal chances in a gunfight. How is it fair that you can actually start shooting the enemy first but if the they start shooting back in small enough time window you actually lose.
I am begging for ONE good reason why the body armor should retain its damage reduction if there are many and I mean MANY examples where it gives clear competetive advantage. Just one good why
1 Like
So the most experienced and the best players in the game are using something that gives them an edge over other players - clearly no problem here apparently. If there’s a moment where body armor matters the most is when it’s used by stronger players
Then why in hell are you getting so worked up when people suggest removing its damage reduction so you DONT HAVE TO MOVE GUNS AROUND or buff them due to it? You really should rename to Tungsten because man you’re dense af
2 Likes
ww2 USSR used body armor for close quarter combat mostly in urban areas- 1 google search.
fg42 can shoot full auto if youre already shooting them at a distance and you dont have to stand in 1 area all the time lol.
because removing features aint the way to go nor buffing everything to counter it a simple nerf can balance it out
I couldnt care less, we are talking about balancing a video game
What does this bring to the conversation? AVT40 can also shoot full auto. Better yet - it has less dispersion. It also does not address my topic of needing to spend twice as many bullets which makes bullet bleed extremely detrimental
If the ‘simple nerf’ is that it reduces 10% off pistol damage as you proposed then yeah - because it removes the main topic of the conversation aka how it fucks up primary weapons balance against Soviets. Its basically equalivalent to removing this feature. It still does not explain why are you trying to defend it with all your might and you still have not given me a one good reason why it should stay the way it is other than you throwing ‘skill issue’ and being clowned on for it
1 Like
its a ww2 game based around major fights of that time.
you brought up the fg42 having to aim for headshots at 60m when you can just spray them down at that distance instead of aiming for headshots since in that scenario youre already aiming and shooting at them you also have other troops in your squad that has guns if youre running low on ammo.
the simple nerf could be anything from limiting the troops that can wear it to adding movement de buffs similar to LMG squad troops or just making it affect pistol rounds like the 9mm
because its a cool feature that should stay in the game its that simple im not the one complaining about a video game feature that can be circumvented by shooting at their heads in close quarter combat or just simply shooting first theres also 9 other teammates that can assist you in fighting off that squad if its that bad
MFW a Japanese BR 5 SF rifle discussion becomes exclusively about body armor (only one faction getting a 10% damage reduction is very much unbalanced)
1 Like
the first sentence mentions moving the weapon around because of body armor lol
If it doesnt matter, just remove it then.
1 Like
Which will definitely be an issue when Japan vs Russia comes around. Russia already has the strongest infantry weapons plus a free 10% damage reduction. Cosmetics should be cosmetic, or equal across the board.
The highest levels of play show that body armor does in fact make an impact when playing against other actually good players. The disparity widens considerably when noobs are fighting those min maxed Russians.
I personally would love to see some suggestions on an alternative to the THA that has higher damage but less rounds.
3 Likes
why should a feature be removed when the game is about ww2 and the USSR used it? it being unbalanced can just be fixed with a nerf
Dumb argument because that is not how body armor worked and WW2 argument is like saying the game is a shooter.
And it should be removed because it causes imbalance in favor for one faction.
Yeah remove it or put it into backpack slot.
But that is apparently not historical for a game where every soldier runs around with failed automatic weapons and flying jets from 1946.
1 Like
removing it is not a nerf it just makes the game more bland and a good example is every nation having AT rockets from germany.
this would be a great nerf and they can even make it take up the grenade slots to limit what infantry with body armor can do
The game truly gets more bland when one nation has obvious advantages over others, dissolving choice. The game excels when a battle is close. Stomps occur far less when there is equal incentive to play all nations.
By your logic, USSR vs Japan never needed queueing randomization, but everyone knew USSR was going to have stronger gear.
when it comes to Japan and their option in weapons they dont have anything and if youre talking about the recent event where it auto selected you into USSR on the first day that was the games fault because the day after it was more balanced and the only issue I saw with that event was the squad load outs and their perk selections
The enemy shoots back at you and 1 shots you.Here. Your entire argument dismantled. Better yet have some math’s:
FG42 II despite higher RoF needs 2 shots to kill armored Soviet at distance of 60m and velocity of 750 m/s for total TTK of 0.07+0.08=0.15s. AVT40(20) needs 1 shot at velocity of 815m/s giving you 0.074 TTK. Even if you react 75ms slower you still win just because you have the body armor
Quite self explanatory^
Not in the state it is.
As stated before body armor does not affect FGs up to 15m range. At anywhere further you are aiming at 20% of the hitbox your enemy has to aim at to be in equal fight. Again - how is that fair?
I’ll treat it as a poor rage bait because I refuse to believe you said it unironically
Ah yes - its so much better that you have to pick up body armor for each of your soldier because it gives you an unfair advantage over your enemies. It makes game so much more fun! The game was so much better when checks notes you couldn’t destroy Pershings as Japan because their rocket launcher peaked at BR2
I swear to god Soviet mains would rather sell their mother rather than have the crutch of the body armor removed. Tho I’d be honestly surprised if you even play the game given the absolute abysmal takes you provide because I just don’t want to think that someone can play the game actively and not understand such basics concepts about it
1 Like
you sound like a slaty German main since im supposedly a soviet main now lol. just shoot first with your fg42 if its that bad. crying about body armor being unbalanced and saying it should be removed instead of being nerfed just makes it funny to see at this point. you go out of your way to throw shade at players wanting armor instead of requesting nerfs to it. it is a video game after all with 3 other nations to play if youre already tired of seeing green turtles running around.