Yes! that’s exactly what the clown would say. 
1 Like
Well I guess making fun of yourself might be amusing to some.
Cope harder baby. 
First of all, according to the very chart you provided, the T24 actually has higher recoil than both the early MG42 and the MG45. While it shares the same recoil as the standard MG42, its rate of fire is way lower—and to top it off, the dispersion on the MG45 is actually better than the T24.
I’m not equating an SMG with a machine gun. I brought it up to point out the logical flaw in your absurd argument that “low fire rate is fine as long as you have a big magazine.” It’s an analogy about the balancing mechanics of fire rate versus capacity regarding BR placement. It’s amazing how completely you missed the point of the analogy.
I didn’t think my words were that hard to understand.
Then you probably understand how SMG magazine size isnt exactly comparable to machine gun magazine ?
You do understand that being capable to fire for longer time ( More ammo ) with MG is quite alot better than not ?
Its quite crucial for weapon that is supposed to lay down sustained fire.
1 Like
Actually, there is no reason they can’t be compared. I think you completely misunderstood the point I was making.
While sustained fire is indeed important, why do you keep completely ignoring the fire rate? TTK is determined not just by damage, but by fire rate as well. Was my explanation a bit too difficult to follow? Having a large ammunition capacity is obviously a good thing, but why can’t you see that it isn’t the only thing that matters? You mentioned earlier that we seemed to be playing different versions of the game; at this point, I have to wonder if you are playing Enlisted from five years ago.
The entirely different usage would first come in my mind.
Most likely, sounds quite flawed strawman argument smg / mg.
Did I ? Quite sure I stated the excessive firerate aint exactly benefitting.
As well as by the fact will you hit your target or not.
High recoil + high rof you can do the math.
Because the other things you mentioned, recoil & dispersion for example are almost identical.
Pretty sure Type100 wasnt in the game 5yrs ago.
And then again, that was response to you 2. According to you theres 2 holes because 4 rounds hit exact same spot.
No matter of the range, i got exactly same result.
2 rounds 2 holes.
You still haven’t explained why the comparison is invalid — you just repeated the assertion. The analogy wasn’t “SMGs and MGs are the same weapon class,” it was about the balancing logic (fire rate vs. magazine size trade-off for BR placement). Rejecting an analogy because the two weapons have different roles misses the point of an analogy entirely — that’s exactly the “strawman” you’re accusing me of, except you’re the one dodging the actual argument.
You said high RPM “isn’t beneficial,” but that’s not the same as addressing TTK. Fire rate directly affects time-to-kill regardless of your opinion on whether it’s “excessive.” Dodging the TTK math by saying “well hit chance matters too” doesn’t erase the fact that T24 has both a low RPM and worse recoil than guns with higher RPM — the one advantage low RPM is supposed to buy you (controllability) isn’t even there.
This directly contradicts what you said in post #61: “T24 has slightly worse recoil.” Pick one. And per the stat chart, the MG45 has better dispersion than the T24. “Almost identical” isn’t accurate — you’re rounding away real gaps that happen to hurt your argument.
That’s exactly the problem with testing it at point-blank range — the two rounds land so close together they visually merge into what looks like one hole. That’s why the clip fired straight up into the sky was posted: at that angle there’s no target surface to converge the impact points, and you can clearly see two distinct tracers coming from a single trigger pull. If it were really just one round, there’d be one tracer, full stop.
On top of that, the in-game stat card itself lists this weapon’s damage as 26.4 — which doesn’t match a single standard round for that caliber. That number only makes sense if you account for two rounds being fired per shot. That’s not “my narrative,” that’s the game’s own displayed data confirming the same thing the tracer clip shows.
So we’ve now got two independent pieces of evidence — the sky-tracer clip and the damage stat — both pointing the same direction. If you still want to argue it’s one round, you’d need to explain why the game shows two tracers and a damage value inconsistent with a single hit.
1 Like
Not sure what entirely different usage part you had hard time to figure ?
One is high recoil high dmg stationary weapon system while other is agile cqc weapon ?
One is best used on range one is cqc
Dunno whats theres difficult to crasp on that ?
Pretty much, you wont see ppl arguing that KT2 should be at BR1 because pistols have higher rof.
It is relatively irrelevant on range, +600rof is more than enough to kill no matter how big group of people, the differency between 600 or 1200 here is nonexistent I can fairly confidentally say you wont switch to another target so fast that your gun fails to fire in given time due to slow rof.
Except what you argue is the wobbling sights while standing which is fundamentally idiotic if by design the gun is supposed to be used while stationary.
To the MG42 early you brought to discussion, yes it does.
But T24 has more ammo.
differency is 6 & 5.
I guess, notable but sure as fk aint the reason why you fail with the gun.
But sure, could be it fires 4. Aint first time DF does something retarded.
But in that exact case the correct way is to FIX the broken weapon rather than “buff” others to compare on broken weapon.
Arent it supposed to fire both barrels simultaneously ? which is exactly what I got with it. 2 rounds 2 rounds out of mag.
I never said they’re the same weapon class. The analogy was never about usage — it was about whether “low fire rate is fine as long as you have more ammo” holds up as balancing logic. You still haven’t addressed that part. Pointing out they’re used differently doesn’t refute the logic being compared, it just avoids it.
Comparing a tank to a pistol isn’t a parallel to the analogy I made — it’s a deliberate exaggeration to make the logic sound absurd. My comparison was between two infantry small arms in the same general discussion about fire rate vs. capacity trade-offs. A tank and a handgun aren’t even in the same category of discussion to begin with, so of course no one argues that. That’s not a rebuttal, that’s just stretching the comparison until it breaks so you don’t have to engage with the actual point.
This directly contradicts what you said back in post #61, where you admitted T24 has slightly worse recoil than MG42 Early. So which is it? If RPM genuinely doesn’t matter, then the low RPM isn’t buying T24 anything — and if recoil is also worse, there’s no trade-off left in T24’s favor at all. You can’t dismiss RPM as irrelevant and also count on it as a balancing factor whenever it’s convenient.
That’s not a rebuttal, that’s confirming the problem. Matches aren’t static firing ranges — you get pushed off position, forced to reposition, forced to fire while moving constantly. Saying “well it’s meant to be used prone” is just admitting the weapon falls apart the second real combat forces you out of that one ideal scenario.
On recoil — okay, now you’re confirming T24’s recoil is worse than MG42 Early. That’s consistent with what you already said in #61.
But “more ammo” still doesn’t answer the actual issue. Extra rounds in the belt don’t help if the gun is harder to control while firing them. More ammo just means more opportunities to miss. If T24 has worse recoil and worse sights than a lower-tier weapon, having 50 extra rounds doesn’t offset any of that — it just means you spray longer before running dry, not that you land more hits.
And separately, on dispersion — you conceded the numbers are different, then dismissed it with zero explanation for why that gap doesn’t matter in practice. That’s not an argument, that’s just a stated opinion. If you want to claim the gap is negligible, explain why — don’t just assert it.
This is a different argument than the one we were actually having. The question was whether Type 100 is effectively stronger than its listed stats suggest — not whether that’s a bug that should be patched instead. Either way, the in-game damage stat of 26.4 still doesn’t match a single round for that caliber. That’s not something I invented, that’s the game’s own displayed data.
And if it really were just a bug, why would the damage stat be listed as 26.4 in the first place? A bug where two projectiles get fired isn’t going to also independently produce a specific, consistent damage value on the stat card that just happens to reflect two rounds. That number being there suggests it’s accounted for by design, not an accident. Whether you call it intended or not, it doesn’t change the fact that T24 is being compared against weapons whose real output may not even match their stat card — which, if anything, makes the disparity worse, not irrelevant.
What part you failed to understand ?
No shit ?
It is.
Which play entirely different role.
Just like pistol and tank.
Quite sure they play the same if used properly.
Not the guns fault if you insist trying to use it wrong.
So you are actually so fast that while bipoded your gun fails to fire because it has so slow rof and you have already transitioned your aim on another target ?
Which is intentional, otherwise they would have left the LMG’s like they were over 5 years ago.
Just large assault-rifles.
hence the comment, no none of the LMG’s are competive in BR5.
At what point did I disagree regarding the recoil ?
Relatively sure I said the differency is minimal and pointed out that that absolutely tiny differency sure as fk aint the reason why you fail with the weapon.
No you wont land any hits, but thats issue between chair and keyboard rather than the gun itself.
Both still have 0.4 dispersion.
Which are wrong, correct stats are in the link provided.
In which case the correct solution is to fix the broken weapon rather than make everything else on par.
You already admitted it was “a deliberate exaggeration to make the logic sound absurd.” That’s the definition of a strawman — you’re not disputing the actual comparison, you’re substituting a more extreme one because the real one is harder to dismiss. Two infantry LMGs discussed in the same fire-rate-vs-capacity context aren’t remotely equivalent to comparing a tank and a pistol.
This isn’t an answer, it’s a “no true Scotsman.” If two guns have different recoil values on their own stat cards, “use it properly and they’re the same” isn’t a real claim — it’s just refusing to engage with the number. Either the recoil values differ or they don’t. You’ve now confirmed multiple times that they do.
Nobody claimed that. TTK isn’t only about switching targets — it’s about how long it takes to put down the target in front of you right now. A slower RPM means more time exposed while you’re still trying to kill the first target, regardless of whether you’d ever need to switch.
You called it “almost identical” earlier, then when pressed you shifted to “minimal but real.” That’s a walkback, not consistency. And “minimal” is still your opinion — you haven’t shown why a real, admitted recoil disadvantage combined with a real, admitted dispersion disadvantage doesn’t add up to a meaningful gap.
better then you
Have you even played this game?
That’s exactly why the T24 needs to be buffed.
Stop for a while and think at which point you thought its somewhat remotely good comparison to compare CQC and mid to long range guns together that have absolutely different roles and restrictions.
There are no comparison.
No, im genuinely trying to highlight for you how absolutely retarded your “comparison” is.
Pretty sure they are.
Neither are comparable.
Sure, give the T24 same recoil as MG42 early, and next week at this same time you are still whining how shit the gun is.
If this is the hill where you want to die on, by all means.
Differency is 0.1 and 0.06.
Well below reaction times of FPS pro players so again, I doubt this is the reason why you fail.
Sure, and again. Grant it same recoil as MG42 early, and you still suck with it and you still wont see any difference with it.
The dispersion is exactly 0.4 for both guns.
Which is why you are moaning how you suck shit with T24 while trying to do 360 bunnyhops ?
No, I just visit at forums look at clowns that pretends they suck shit because of theyr gun.
Because of broken gun ?
That’s not actually a response to my argument.
I never claimed that matching the MG42 Early’s recoil would magically solve every issue with the T24.
My point has consistently been that the weapon’s historically low rate of fire shouldn’t be changed, so the balance should instead be refined through the aspects that can actually be adjusted, such as recoil, the sight picture, or dispersion.
Predicting that I’ll “still complain next week” doesn’t address that argument.
Reaction time and time-to-kill are different concepts.
Reaction time determines when you begin shooting.
Time-to-kill determines how quickly the weapon delivers the shots required to eliminate the target after that.
A higher rate of fire still reduces that mechanical delay, regardless of human reaction time, and that becomes even more noticeable when engaging multiple targets.
There clearly is.
The entire discussion has been about how different LMGs balance their strengths and weaknesses.
Comparing weapons doesn’t mean they must become identical.
It means asking whether their overall trade-offs are reasonable.
Dispersion has never been my only point, and the shared 0.4 value only refers to their base dispersion. Moving dispersion also needs to be considered, because that directly affects how reliably the weapon performs while repositioning or firing without being completely stationary.
If the in-game weapon statistics are correct, the T24 already has higher recoil than both the MG42 Early and the MG45 despite firing significantly slower.
Looking at one base dispersion value in isolation, while ignoring recoil, moving dispersion, the sight picture, and rate of fire, does not explain the weapon’s overall balance.
and
One thing I have noticed throughout this discussion is that you keep responding to individual words or isolated statistics rather than to my actual argument as a whole.
My position has remained the same from the beginning:
-Keep the T24’s historically accurate rate of fire.
-Improve the parts that can realistically be balanced, such as recoil, the sight picture, or dispersion.
-Do so because the weapon currently gives up a significant amount of rate of fire without receiving enough practical handling advantages in return.
If you disagree with that conclusion, that’s perfectly fine.
But saying that I’ll “still complain,” that I “just suck,” or replacing my argument with a more extreme one isn’t really an explanation of why the T24’s current trade-offs are already well balanced.
You think you sound ‘cool’ by linking this youtube video but in reality it’s extremely cringe and hypocritical as you literally had done nothing but using strawman arguments, coping, double standard, moving the goal posts, insulting when your logic failed in this entire posts. Ironically, this video describes you perfectly more than anyone in here. How pathetic. I really mean it.
1 Like
Okay, so since so far you havent exactly suggested much of anything rather just moaned how bad the T24 is.
So are you expecting me to suggest different values untill I find the sweet spot to your liking ?
Clearly the “superior” stats of Mg42 early isnt enough so should I suggest pistol recoil next or ?
They kind of go hand in hand in here. Regardless does your gun have 0 TTK it doesnt matter if your reaction time is measured in minutes.
Nor the gun wont fire without user.
So are these targets in one massive group or spaced ?
No there isnt.
You dont see ppl asking why theyr mortar cant fire while walking, ppl asking why theyr flamethrower doesnt have the range of sniper rifle or snipers asking why theyr BA sniper aint fully automatic belt fed guns,
For some odd reason majority have figured out the limitations of theyr chosen class, which seems to be slightly difficult for you,
Assuming this is your “reply” to subject its fine to compare smg to mg.
Well I cant explain the pro’s and cons in any simplier manner, you need to ask someone to make coloring book if its still issue.
Moving spread actually seems to be better for T24 than MG42 100.
It is the same, not worse unlike you stated.
Again, for all I care give it same recoil as mg42 early which you compared your gun to.
Wont be any better even if they do so,
T24 has better movement stats than MG42 100 at br5.
Quite sure you wanted to keep this historical ?
Dunno, arent you supposed to suggest what you think is reasonable, rather than others suggest and guess what might please you.
What is this whiny rambling? Are you really this stupid or are you doing that incredibly disingenuous intentional misunderstanding to support your absurdly biased opinions once again? Just stop, it’s pathetic.
I mean you don’t even have T24 and never even used it before. Why are you keep acting like you actually have one and used it before? Not only you don’t know shit but you are also terrible at the game yet for some reason you keep rambling about player reaction time? 
Your opinion is as invalid as it can get in this topic.
1 Like
I find this a rather strange way to frame the discussion.
Throughout this entire exchange, you haven’t proposed a single balancing value yourself. Every reply has simply been another reason why nothing should change.
First it was “buffing it won’t make it competitive.”
Then it became “all LMGs are obsolete because of the BR V meta.”
Now, after repeatedly arguing against any adjustment at all, you’ve suddenly shifted the discussion to “give me exact numerical values.”
That isn’t addressing my argument; it’s moving the goalposts.
Neither of us is balancing Enlisted. We’re players discussing balance. Our job is to identify problems and suggest reasonable directions for improvement. The developers determine the final numbers.
Since you insist on concrete values, here are mine.
-Keep the historical 670 RPM.
-Increase the Sprint Factor from 0.45 to 0.55.
-Reduce the excessive horizontal recoil to a level comparable to the other BR V machine guns.
-Since the T24 is intended to retain its historically low rate of fire, compensate for that disadvantage by giving it a modest but noticeable practical accuracy advantage over the MG42 100, MG42 Early and MG45, allowing it to occupy a distinct accuracy-focused niche instead of simply being a slower version of those weapons.
-Improve the excessively thick front sight.
Those changes would not create an overpowered weapon.
They would simply create a more meaningful trade-off by providing compensation that better reflects the weapon’s lower rate of fire.
You’re combining two different concepts into one.
Reaction time and TTK certainly both contribute to the total engagement time, but they are not the same variable.
Reaction time determines when the player starts firing.
TTK determines how long the weapon requires to finish the kill after firing begins.
Those are two completely different stages of the engagement.
In simple terms,
Total engagement time = Player reaction time + Input/aiming delay + Weapon TTK
Your hypothetical example of someone taking “minutes” to react doesn’t disprove the importance of TTK.
It simply exaggerates one variable until every other variable becomes meaningless.
By exactly the same logic, weapon statistics themselves would become irrelevant whenever one player is significantly worse than another.
Obviously, nobody evaluates weapon balance that way.
Likewise,
“The gun won’t fire without the user.”
is true…
…but it is equally true for every single firearm in Enlisted.
Every weapon requires a player.
Every weapon requires reaction.
Every weapon requires someone to pull the trigger.
Therefore, this statement doesn’t distinguish one weapon from another.
The correct comparison is:
What happens when the same player, with the same reaction time, uses two different weapons?
Once reaction time is held constant, it no longer explains the performance difference between those weapons.
The weapon statistics do.
For example,
A weapon firing at 670 RPM fires one round approximately every 89.6 milliseconds.
A weapon firing at 990 RPM fires one round approximately every 60.6 milliseconds.
That difference exists after the trigger has already been pulled.
Reaction time does not erase it.
The same principle becomes even more significant when engaging multiple enemies.
Whether those enemies are grouped together or spaced apart, a weapon that delivers follow-up shots substantially faster will inevitably complete the engagement sooner.
So yes—reaction time and TTK both affect the total time before a kill.
But using that fact to dismiss the mechanical difference between weapons simply confuses two completely separate parts of the engagement.
The player starts the fight.
The weapon determines what happens afterwards.
The exact spacing doesn’t change the underlying point.
If multiple enemies are grouped together, a higher rate of fire shortens the time required to eliminate them in succession.
If they are spread apart, the higher rate of fire still reduces the delay between landing the final shot on one target and beginning effective fire on the next.
The advantage may become larger or smaller depending on the situation, but it never disappears.
My point was never that rate of fire is the only factor that matters.
My point is that sacrificing more than 300 RPM is a significant disadvantage, and a weapon that accepts that disadvantage should receive equally meaningful strengths elsewhere.
At the moment, I don’t believe the T24 receives enough practical compensation through its overall handling package.
This analogy doesn’t actually address my argument.
I’m not asking the T24 to perform the role of a sniper rifle.
I’m not asking it to replace an SMG.
I’m comparing weapons that belong to the same weapon class, occupy the same matchmaking environment, and are expected to fulfill the same battlefield role.
The T24, MG42 100, MG42 Early and MG45 are all infantry machine guns.
Comparing their:
-rate of fire
-recoil
-dispersion
-mobility
-handling
-sight picture
is entirely appropriate because those are exactly the characteristics that define how weapons within the same class are balanced.
Comparing a machine gun to a mortar or a flamethrower is a false analogy.
Those weapons exist to fulfill fundamentally different battlefield roles.
Machine guns, on the other hand, are intended to fulfill the same battlefield role within the infantry weapon roster.
Because of that, comparing their rate of fire, recoil, dispersion, mobility and handling is both relevant and appropriate.
Comparing a machine gun with a mortar or a flamethrower simply doesn’t address the point being discussed.
My argument has always been about whether the T24’s disadvantages are justified by corresponding advantages within the same weapon class—not about turning it into a completely different weapon.
That is why comparisons with other machine guns are relevant, while comparisons with mortars or flamethrowers are not.
Whether you think my argument is simple or complicated doesn’t actually address it.
The question has never been whether the T24 has advantages and disadvantages. Every weapon does.
The question is whether those advantages are proportional to giving up more than 300 RPM compared to the MG42 100 while retaining its historical rate of fire.
Simply repeating that the weapon has pros and cons doesn’t explain why the current trade-off is already well balanced.
That is the point I’ve been asking you to address from the beginning.
Even if the T24 has a slight advantage in one specific statistic, that alone doesn’t demonstrate that its overall balance is appropriate.
Looking at one marginally favorable value while ignoring every other aspect of the weapon isn’t a meaningful way to evaluate balance.
If a weapon sacrifices more than 300 RPM while also dealing with a thicker front sight, higher horizontal recoil and only limited practical advantages elsewhere, a slight advantage in one statistic isn’t enough to justify the overall trade-off.
The issue has never been whether the T24 has any advantages at all. The issue is whether those advantages are meaningful enough to compensate for everything it gives up. I don’t believe a marginal improvement in one area is sufficient to do that.
You’re correct that the T24’s base dispersion is the same as the MG42 100.
I have no issue acknowledging that.
However, compared to the MG45, the T24 still has worse dispersion despite sacrificing several hundred RPM.
More importantly, focusing on a single comparison while ignoring the broader picture doesn’t address my overall argument.
I’ve never argued that the T24 should have lower dispersion than every machine gun.
My argument has always been that a weapon sacrificing anywhere from over 300 RPM to more than 1,000 RPM, depending on what it is being compared against, should receive sufficiently meaningful practical advantages in return.
I don’t believe the current balance achieves that.
That’s simply an assertion, not an explanation.
Recoil is one of the primary factors affecting practical weapon control. Reducing excessive horizontal recoil would objectively improve the weapon’s controllability.
I’m not claiming recoil alone would solve every issue. In fact, I’ve consistently argued the opposite.
My proposal has always been about improving the overall handling package through a combination of recoil, practical accuracy, sprint mobility and sight picture while keeping the historical 670 RPM.
Rejecting one part of that proposal without addressing the rest doesn’t demonstrate that the overall balance is already appropriate.
I also think you’re seriously underestimating how much horizontal recoil affects a weapon’s practical performance.
Horizontal recoil is far more difficult for the player to compensate for than predictable vertical recoil because its direction changes from shot to shot.
That makes it one of the most influential factors in sustained automatic fire, especially at medium range.
Reducing excessive horizontal recoil wouldn’t magically solve every issue, but dismissing it as if it would make no difference simply isn’t consistent with how weapon handling actually works.
That is simply not accurate as a general statement.
The T24 may have a very slight advantage in one movement-related spread value, but that does not mean it has better movement statistics overall.
Its Sprint Factor is 0.45, while the MG42 100 has 0.50. Therefore, the T24 is actually worse in that aspect of mobility despite being the lighter weapon.
So the accurate conclusion is not that the T24 has “better movement stats.” It has a marginal advantage in one movement-related value and a disadvantage in another important one.
You are once again selecting the single favorable statistic while ignoring the unfavorable statistic that directly contradicts your conclusion.
Why should the lighter machine gun, which already fires more than 300 RPM slower, also receive the lower Sprint Factor?
A tiny advantage in moving spread does not automatically compensate for that, nor does it justify describing the T24’s overall movement performance as superior.
I do.
That’s exactly why I’ve consistently argued against changing the historical 670 RPM.
However, you’re conflating historical characteristics with gameplay implementation.
The sight picture is determined by the game’s weapon model, not by the weapon’s historical rate of fire.
Improving the sight picture doesn’t alter the weapon’s historical identity any more than correcting an inaccurate model or animation would.
Those are gameplay and modelling decisions, not historical ones.
So there is no contradiction between preserving the historical rate of fire and improving the weapon’s sight picture.
That’s exactly what I’ve been doing.
I’ve been describing the direction I believe would make the T24 more reasonably balanced while preserving its historical rate of fire.
Those exact numbers are ultimately for the developers to determine.
My point has always been about the direction of the balance, not prescribing precise implementation values.
I’ve made my position clear and supported it with my reasoning.
Repeating the same dismissive responses without properly addressing those arguments isn’t a discussion.
Unless you have something new to add, I don’t see any reason to continue this conversation.
That usually is the point of the suggestion that OP does the suggesting and rest either agree or doesnt.
So far we’ve been just guessing what would suit you.
Which kind of was the point, to prevent others from making a mistake of wasting 50 on MG squad that is obsolete in game regardless of premium or TT.
Apparently you didnt get memo.
It kinda is the idea of suggestion.
Which you havent still done.
Oh look, after 100 posts you finally suggested something.
Thanks cpt. obvious.
So are you now claiming you can make noticeable differency in given 0.6s time or what are you trying to prove here ?
Sure, so can you make any differency in the few MS differency they have ?
True, yet im still questioning can you actually make differency in 0.2s since your entire argument of it being so inferior to MG relies to this.
Except your ROF argument stands if we assume everyone moves in hand to hand group.
if they are apart that you have to aim each target invidually it doesnt really matter.
No, you just made somet idiotic smg lmg comparison and apparently still faill to see how idiotic it was.
Grant it the same rof then.
According to you, it was worse. But it isnt.
Grant it same ROF.
Actually T24 has better dispersion.
Which you can negate rather effectively by using the gun as its intended by devs.
Perk, use the gun as its designed to, problem solved.
Funny how every advantege T24 is slight, or non-existent yet you insist its shit because of 0.2s TTK differency.
Has better dispersion, movement stats, sacrifices TTK ( 0.2s ) and recoil, which you can negate by using the gun as its intended to.
And by perks.