SMG Balance Revamp: Slow RoF SMG and BR 5 SMG Buff

Suggestions Other
1

This topic is a bit heady, but I think it’s a worthwhile concept to discuss.

In general, most SMGs will have consistent damage relative to their caliber:

7.62mm Tokarev: 5.5/6.6 Damage
8mm Nambu: 5.6/6.7 Damage
9mm Parabellum: 5.6/6.7 Damage
9mm Mauser: 6.6/7.9 Damage
.45 ACP: 6.8/8.2 Damage

Instead of having these standard values, plus some arbitrarily higher and lower values, I propose that each pistol caliber gets two damage “standards”. Essentially, the values listed above are the low value, while each caliber also has a higher value, as a balance stat depending on the weapon:

7.62mm Tokarev: 5.5/6.6 Damage or 6.0/7.2 Damage
8mm Nambu: 5.5/6.6 Damage or 6.0/7.2 Damage
9mm Parabellum: 5.6/7.2 Damage or 6.2/7.4 Damage
9mm Mauser: 6.6/7.9 Damage or 7.3/8.8 Damage
.45 ACP: 6.8/8.2 Damage or 7.5/9.0 Damage

Now, I know what you’re thinking: Why? This standardization allows for two things:

  • SMGs with relatively low rates of fire for their BR can get a damage buff that isn’t anomalous: Uragan SMG, M3A1 Grease Gun, M1928A1 Thompson, MP.40, and S1-100 would be example candidates.
  • BR 5 SMGs could have the higher damage values as standard, all of which two-tap vitality at close range (becoming closer in strength to the current BR 5 select-fire meta).

To elaborate: MP.40 and S1-100 already have buffed damage compared to the standard, but the buffed values aren’t standardized nor surpass damage thresholds. And even if these standards weren’t applied to existing weapons, it means that new weapons could be added with this standard that trade low cyclic rate for damage, and not be considered weak for their BRs.

Example: the Sten Mk.V could be added at BR 2 with 550/630 RPM, but deal 6.0/7.2 damage to differentiate it from an otherwise stronger Lanchester with 600/690 RPM, but 5.6/6.7 damage. This logic can be applied to any two SMGs at the same BR where the primary difference is their rates of fire.

For BR 5 Balance: Select-Fire Rifles (AVT-40 20, T20 etc) have near-0.00 second TTK (one-taps vitality, only factor is time for bullet to travel). Because of this, any weapon that does not one-tap needs many variables to be very strong to compensate, especially in the context of eliminating full squads vs 1v1 engagements. SMGs already have worse dispersion and lower muzzle velocity than Select-Fires, so I think increasing bullets required to kill from (mostly) 3 to 2 at close range helps emphasize their strength where they should be a better choice than Select-Fires.

For Casual Players: Having a more diverse meta at any BR makes the game better for everyone. Many players who can’t control the higher recoil of faster firing SMGs of low/mid BR would have a stronger chance with the lower rate of fire damage buffs, and having stronger SMGs at BR 5 means 9 man squad select-fire spam is no longer an absolute necessity for meta chasers. As far as I’m concerned, everyone across the board wins from this.

Do You Want To See SMGs With Relatively Low Rates Of Fire Receive A Damage Buff?

  • Yes
  • No (SMG damage should only have 1 standard)
  • No (it’s confusing)
  • No (I want each BR to have a clear best option)
0 voters

Do You Want SMGs At BR 5 To Receive a Universal Damage Buff (Two-Tap Vitality At Close Range)?

  • Yes
  • No (SMGs are fine)
  • No (SMGs shouldn’t compete)
0 voters

I appreciate any constructive feedback! Thanks.

5 Likes
2

Technically the SMG damage values are arbitrary anyways.

I heard people for example claim how 7.62 TT could actually deal more damage than a 9mm because of its higher pressure and bigger velocity.

3

This is correct, hence why I am suggesting standardization.

And yes, 7.62mm Tokarev is by modern standards almost a PDW cartridge. I believe in the context of the game, it makes sense for it to have slightly less damage than 9mm since the RoF of those weapons are higher in general (and I think the developers feel this way too).

2 Likes
4

I’ll do anything to get 7.2 damage on the Type 100 late again.

5

Assuming every other tree had 900+RPM SMGs at BR 3 with similar magazine sizes, I could see that being a balance option! For now, I think it’s in a pretty good place, and the ZK-383 at the same BR with a slower RPM would be a better candidate.

6

I believe the length of barrel should be considered in dmg stat as well.

For example, PPS-42 and PPS-43 shouldn’t have the same dmg.

That’s why I don’t like any kind of standardization.

3 Likes
7

Realistically, both should have the same RoF of either 600 or 650 RPM. Could be a reason to put them at different BRs, with different damages?

2 Likes
8

Very true - longer barrels = more velocity.

Just trying to find information about this, so far it seems PPSH41 had a longer barrel than PPS43, but I cant find specifics about PPS43 and 42 being different. Are you sure about this?

9

Slow RPM high damage SMGs would be great for Soviets diversity.

1 Like
10

Definitely! I think people have mentioned the Tallinn before for a BR 3 alternative to the PPSh-41 Box? That has 40 rounds at 600 RPM, but it would be competitive if it two-tapped Vitality.

Same obviously can be said for the Uragan as well, since it’s otherwise eclipsed by the Box.

1 Like
11

Yes, I think its mentioned in Ian’s videos + it is even in ingame description of PPS-42 as well.

1 Like
12

Time to watch some GunJesus I guess

1 Like
13

I kinda wish it would be balanced just by basing on ammo type and barrel length, when said barrel should also have an impact accuracy and aiming

14

Also, I genuinely am curious why people don’t want BR 5 SMGs to be competitive (based on poll results). Is anyone willing to elaborate?

1 Like
15

Many people in the community don’t want SMG in BR5.

16

Yeah, I find that approach to balance totally nonsensical as well.

Even now, I find drum SMGs as suomi or ppsh much effective at squad wiping in cqc than any ARs. Especially while used in hip fire.

So I think they definitely deserve to have BR5 stats, and be real improvement to an BR4 SMGs in comparison.

17

Completely agree. To me, ARs and SMGs can both exist at BR 5, but the AR fills more of a jack-of-all-trades role while SMGs dominate at close-quarters squad wiping. Not to mention some soldier types can only use SMGs and not ARs (APC Drivers, Medics, Guerrillas).

But in the context of “competitive play” at BR 5, there isn’t a reason to bring anything other than 3 9 man rifleman squads with T20s, AVTs, FG.42s or Type Heis. In plenty of my matches, since my teammates avoid the objective/don’t build rallies/don’t flank and destroy enemy rallies, I’m forced to just beeline the objective with rifleman squads, which gets stale really fast. If I have to push the objective every millisecond, it would be nice to have options that are overall comparable in strength, but have different strengths and weaknesses.

1 Like
18

Yeah, the only reason to not play it is boredom. I really don’t favor of playing the same thing over and over again.

So if people prefer repetitive gameplay just to gain an advantage over others, that’s their way of having fun. Not mine.

1 Like
19

In an ideal world, almost every option should have equal “weight” when it comes to a win or loss outcome. It genuinely feels like my recent WR would be 20% if I just made vibe picks.