I’d like to hear your thoughts.
The way LMGs are right now, none of them have the potential to oneshot soldiers with the vitality perk. If you’ll need 2 shots to kill a soldier, then assault rifles are a far more mobile weapon with a similar effect, and automatic rifles are only outclassed by magazine capacity- Which they ultimately won’t need due to the lower expected ammo consumption, less recoil and nonexistent penalties.
Tbh I don’t think the damage is the issue here…
Both vitality and armour just cause balancing issues without making the gameplay better. Change my mind.
I think LMGs are reasonable as they are now, they have insanely high DPS and large ammo capacity especially compared to the their BR counterparts.
Any buff to them might break balance so anything beside cosmetic changes such as Mauser and 7.62 doing 12.2 damage instead of 12.0 damage because they were bigger/more powerful than 06-30. would probably be a bad idea.
Isn’t the damage the issue but the dispersion on the gun
they didnt because they were supposed to be rivals to SMGs, however since they lost their assault rifle dispersion + they still make you move slower + MGs are more limited than assaulters → yes this could be done, however I would much much rather see vitality nerfed.
If we want to be consistent, we might as well flatline the damage stat of every single weapon.
Any weapon firing anything bigger than a pistol round should oneshot unless they hit a limb, as is the case for most milsim games, and all headshots should be fatal.
Because there’s no point punching in arbitrary numbers for damage values if the end result is the same.
This, or they need their dispersion lowered for both hipfire or aiming.
That’s the other issue.
Though I like keeping my topics focused.
LMGs have 0.30-0.40 dispersion and they fire from open bolt while semi-auto rifles have around 0.20 dispersion and closed bolt which makes their shots more accurate and slightly harder hitting because more of the power/explosion is forced towards the barrel thus increasing the speed of the bullet.
So LMGs doing less damage is actually realistic.
I don’t see how this is relevant to my point.
well, I argue that MGs are still only support tools - properly deployed they can wipe multiple squads in seconds, but if used on the move they will have massive issues and disadvantages over SMGs.
I also think MGs are fine the way they are, but ultimately need to be properly used to be effective, which is totally okay.
Also I think, a gun with massive dispersion can actually help total noobs hit something, when you can’t aim at all, looking in to the general direction of the enemy can still give you kill in the end if you have enough ammo.
We know the damage value needed to kill/down soldiers.
There would be a far lower incentive to upgrade weapons when soldiers are expected to die within the same predictable number of hits, nor is there a need to distinguish between the damage values between weapons because they are effectively made the same.
If every soldier has 10 HP because vitality perks and armor are removed, then instead of damage, the only relevant factors to consider for a choice of weapon will be every other factor such as rate of fire.
This is not an argument in favor of armor or vitality.
its more about the movement dispersion, you have to stop moving in order to make any hits - which sucks because people aim with “A” and “D” much more than one would guess, actually this is especially the case with console players, moving left and right to fine adjust your aim is much easier than aiming regularly, which is my main reason not to use MGs as often as I would.
Except damage affects also things like damage drop.
And there are like 5 other important parameters, not only rof.
Also it’s a weird argument since damage standardization is exactly what you suggest.
oh ADS speed, maybe a little buff to overall ADS speed wouldnt hurt too much, they get insane dispersion penatly while moving.
Damage drop that is only relevant for SMGs.
No shit, really?
I should list every conceivable weapon stat instead of just giving 1 pertinent example, Mr. Obvious.
Are you incapable of nuance?
Removing vitality perks from the game would make every weapon feel like they deal the same damage. In effect, they would be “standardized” because damage is made largely irrelevant between firearms and more dependent on weapon class and other stats.
What I am extracting opinions for is whether or not LMGs should deal as much damage as their SA rifle counterparts for consistency so that they would follow the damage “standard” set by SA rifles.
Oh, I skipped some words while reading. My mistake.
I don’t understand if you mean “damage of every weapon in the same class would feel the same” or “damage of every weapon would feel the same”.
Because 1st one is already true in many cases and 2nd one is simply false.
And I say it’s an artificial balance issue introduced by vitality and armor. If we exclude those factors, they already do basically the same damage (and that is your point I presume).
But other than that, I’d say both SAs and MGs should do the same damage (1 hit to down, 2 to kill point black).
Then we are in agreement.
Yes.
I’d argue the vitality perk gives purpose for weapon damage upgrades outside of extending the effective range of your weapon.
It was rarer to have back then when the soldier perks were RNG hell, and before that, academy hell, but after the TT merge update, it’s now far easier to both purchase soldiers in bulk and acquire the perk. It’s become less of a niche only flametroops could consistently get, and more of something to build soldier perks towards.
You either get the additional utility offered by the vitality tree perks, or take the +35% HP perk to tank an extra hit from any source. It’s balanced in that it’s non-faction exclusive and relatively easy to obtain.
Armor is an undoubtedly an issue, and I’d rather see it nerfed, removed or turned into a backpack item available to every faction.
I’d argue current weapon upgrades don’t serve any gameplay purpose other than to increase the grind and (as you say) to counter vitality/armor.
So one unnecessary mechanic gives purpose to another one. Both don’t improve the gameplay one bit, both increase grind.
Not like we can do anything with this.
Imo it messes up the weapon balance more than it’s worth.
Also apparently it’s the go to perk for “competetive” players. So I guess other options aren’t as good. But I’m biased against anything meta so I may be wrong.
Agree.
I really wish every soldier didn’t have a “built different” perk, it’s balance-breaking in my opinion.
I’d love if it was replaced with something more in line with the other tier 3 perks