That is simply not true.
The original post already suggested reducing the T24’s excessive spread and recoil and improving its obstructive sight picture while preserving its historical rate of fire.
What I had not provided were exact numerical values. That is not the same as making no suggestion.
A suggestion post does not require the author to produce a complete balance spreadsheet. Players can identify the problem and propose a reasonable direction, while the developers determine the final tuning.
You were never guessing what I wanted. The direction was stated from the beginning.
And I’m not sure why you keep saying “we.” I doubt there are that many people here who share your particular bias on th
That may explain why you chose to comment, but it does not address the balance issue.
Calling the squad obsolete and warning people not to waste money on it is not an argument for leaving it obsolete. If anything, describing a paid Tier V squad as a waste of money strengthens the case that it needs a balance pass.
It is also strange to present yourself as warning potential buyers about this particular purchase when you have already said that you do not own any premium squads. You are free to criticize the price and the wider machine-gun meta, but that is not the same as evaluating this specific paid squad from firsthand experience.
Your broader criticism of machine-gun squads can be valid without making the T24’s individual balance problems irrelevant.
Yes, and I made one. You are confusing “a suggestion” with “a fully specified developer balance patch.”
So which is it?
You first claim that I still have not made a suggestion, and then immediately acknowledge that I have.
More importantly, the original post already proposed reducing the T24’s spread and recoil and improving its sight picture. What I added later were concrete numerical examples because you kept insisting that the earlier direction was not specific enough.
You may criticize the level of detail, but saying that no suggestion existed until now is inaccurate.
The player does not need to consciously react within those 0.6 seconds for the weapon’s rate of fire to matter.
Once firing begins, the higher-rate weapon automatically delivers more rounds in the same amount of time. That matters when the first shot misses, when follow-up shots are needed, during bursts and when engaging multiple targets.
My point is not that a player performs some special action within every fraction of a second. My point is that weapon statistics continue to affect the engagement after the player pulls the trigger.
Reducing that to “what can you personally do in 0.6 seconds?” misses the point.
The player does not need to consciously “do” anything within those milliseconds.
The difference affects when the next round leaves the weapon. That matters whenever the first shot misses, when a follow-up shot is required, during sustained bursts, and when multiple rounds are needed to secure a kill.
At 670 RPM, the interval between shots is about 89.6 ms. At 990 RPM, it is about 60.6 ms. The difference is roughly 29 ms per firing interval, and it accumulates with every additional shot.
So the relevant question is not whether the player can perform a separate conscious action within 29 ms. The relevant question is which weapon delivers the next shot sooner after firing has already begun.
No, my argument does not rely on a fixed 0.2-second difference. You keep reducing a multi-factor balance argument to a single number because it is easier to dismiss that way.
I have repeatedly discussed rate of fire, horizontal recoil, practical accuracy, Sprint Factor and sight obstruction as one complete package.
The 0.2-second figure is only one illustration of how the lower rate of fire affects follow-up shots and sustained fire. It is not the foundation of the entire argument.
The player does not need to perform a separate conscious action within those 0.2 seconds. The faster weapon simply delivers more rounds sooner once firing has begun.
So stop pretending that my position is “T24 is bad because of 0.2 seconds.” That is not what I said, and repeating it does not make it true.
No, that is another false limitation you are imposing on the argument.
Higher rate of fire does not only matter when several enemies are standing shoulder to shoulder. It also matters when the first shot misses, when a target requires follow-up shots, during short bursts, and whenever the weapon needs to recover from an imperfect engagement.
Target spacing can reduce the importance of rate of fire because more time is spent aiming between targets. It does not make the difference disappear.
You are taking one situation where the advantage is smaller and pretending that this proves the advantage is irrelevant in general. It does not.
Giving up more than 300 RPM remains a real disadvantage regardless of whether every target is tightly grouped, and it still has to be weighed against the T24’s recoil, mobility, accuracy and sight picture.
Calling an analogy “idiotic” is not an explanation.
The comparison was about balance structure: how rate of fire, ammunition capacity and handling trade against each other. It was not a claim that SMGs and LMGs serve the same role.
If you believe the analogy fails, explain which part of that balance logic is invalid. Repeating an insult does not do that.
More importantly, my current argument does not depend on that analogy at all. The actual comparison is between the T24 and other infantry machine guns in the same class.
Continuing to attack an analogy instead of addressing those same-class trade-offs is not a rebuttal.
Brilliant solution. Just remove the exact historical characteristic I have repeatedly said should remain unchanged.
At this point, it is difficult to tell whether you are deliberately ignoring my position or simply replying without reading it.
I have consistently argued for preserving the historical 670 RPM and compensating for it elsewhere. “Give it the same rate of fire” does not answer that argument. It merely replaces it with the exact proposal I have already rejected.
If your solution to every balance difference is to make the relevant statistic identical, then you are not discussing balance. You are avoiding the trade-off entirely.
Thank you for demonstrating once again that you are arguing with a position I never held.
Except it is.
Impressive. I said “keep the historical RPM,” and your answer is “change the RPM.” Reading the argument before replying might help.
Yes, if you conveniently stop reading after the single number that supports your argument.
That does not negate the balance difference. It merely reduces recoil under a specific firing condition.
Other machine guns can also be mounted and benefit from the same mechanic, so the T24’s relative disadvantage does not magically disappear when both weapons are used under comparable conditions.
And actual matches do not consist entirely of perfectly prepared mounted positions. Players have to move, change positions and engage targets without always having time or suitable cover to deploy the weapon.
“Just mount it” is not an explanation for why its baseline handling should remain worse. It is simply an attempt to ignore every situation in which mounting is unavailable.
No, problem not solved.
Even with recoil perks and while using it from a supported position, the T24 still retains its low rate of fire, obstructive sight picture and limited overall handling advantages.
Perks do not exist only for the T24, and mounting the weapon does not suddenly give it a meaningful advantage over other machine guns used under the same conditions.
More importantly, the weapon is still underwhelming even in the role you claim it was designed for. A low-rate-of-fire machine gun intended for controlled, supported fire should offer exceptional controllability or practical accuracy in return. The T24 does not.
“Use a perk and mount it” is not a solution. It is simply lowering the standard until the weapon’s weaknesses can be ignored.
Funny how you keep reducing an argument about rate of fire, horizontal recoil, movement, practical accuracy and sight obstruction to “0.2 seconds,” then pretend you have addressed the argument.
I never said every T24 advantage is nonexistent. I said its limited advantages do not adequately compensate for the complete set of disadvantages.
Repeating the same distorted summary does not make it accurate.
Funny how the only version of my argument you can answer is the one you invented yourself.
Funny how confidently you summarize the statistics while apparently not reading all of them.
The T24 only looks better in dispersion when you isolate the favorable base value and ignore the rest of its accuracy profile. Movement spread is a separate factor, and “better movement stats” is simply false as a general statement: the T24 has a Sprint Factor of 0.45, while the heavier MG42 100 has 0.50.
So no, the T24 does not simply have “better dispersion and movement stats.” You selected the values that support your conclusion and ignored the ones that directly contradict it.
And perks or mounted firing do not erase the comparison. Other machine guns can use the same perks and the same supported firing mechanics. When both weapons are compared under equivalent conditions, their underlying differences remain.
You have reduced the rate-of-fire disadvantage to a fixed “0.2 seconds,” reduced the entire accuracy profile to one dispersion value, and reduced mobility to whichever movement statistic happens to favor the T24.
That is not an evaluation of the complete weapon. It is cherry-picking.
In the end, you do not own the squad, you have not evaluated it from firsthand experience, and your entire defense of its current state relies on selectively reading the statistics and telling actual users to compensate for its weaknesses with perks.
It is quite remarkable to lecture people about the value of a product you do not own while repeatedly misreading the statistics of the weapon being discussed.
Perhaps firsthand experience and a complete reading of the statistics would help before the next lecture.
