When I started playing, most my opponents were armed with normal rifles. But after progressing, everyone is armed with submachine guns and riflemen all use grenade launchers which made the game completely broken meaning that every fight is in close quarters and gameplay is aggressive and sometimes even frustrating. To make this problem disappear, I came up with a plan, WEAPON LIMITS. So here’s how it works:
Weapon rarity:
All weapons will have their rarity, from “common” to “very rare”. Common weapons will be easy to get and can be used in unlimited numbers. Uncommon weapons are stronger rifles like pre-war Kar, better mosins and regular submachine guns can only be held by 5-7 soldiers from player’s lineup (when I say lineup, i mean all squads not just one). If we put historical accuracy in this, russians will be able to equip more soldiers with SMG’s but germans will equip more soldiers with more modern rifles (this will work only if devs introduce large maps because right now SMG’s outclass rifles in every situation). Rare weapons (Mp-41, PPK, PTRS-41, Rifle grenade launchers…) can only be obtained by 1 soldier. If Player has more guns of this class, he can choose which rare weapon will he use but will never have access to arm 2 guys with them. If the weapon belongs to premium squad only, player will have luxury to arm 2 soldiers with their premium weapon. Very rare weapons (RD-44, maxim-tokarev, FG-42, Fedrov avromat, AVS-36…) function exactly like rare weapons but they are even more extremely rare to get from boxes and getting one is like receiving a trophy.
Agreed that action bolt rifles should be backbone of each squad, after all we have too much variety in this regard to neglect them like this. But of course we need bigger maps for that as well. Limiting amount of SMGs in the game would introduce more skill and less rambo-like approach, it would also prepare situation on battlefields for bayonets that will probably come to the game as well.
But the way I see it, total amount of automatic weapons in entire lineup shouldn´t go above 5 total and allow unrestricted use of action bolts instead of rarity rank. (excluding tankers who at least need something else than a pistol to defend themselves and thus shouldn´t be limited) When semi auto makes its return to campaigns, they should have some kind of restriction as well, but not as severe as full auto weaponry. As for grenade launchers, I´m not sure if only 1 per lineup isnt too punishing since they are pretty rare to obtain anyway. Perhaps 2-3 would be sufficient?
The current game modes demand CQC. You cannot win games by staying a mile away and sniping enemies. On top of that, you want to restrict the amount of CQC weapons for one faction!? That too when the PPD drum can easily wipe two squads without reloading and now there is not even resistance because everyone’s running around with rifles!? Bruh…
All you need is bigger maps so that you can’t simply rush into a point with SMGs while killing everyone on your way. Bigger areas will automatically force people to use rifles or be careful with SMGs. And then hopefully, SMGs will get restricted to defending zones.
When giving limits, you are only introducing min-maxing, where you yeet all meta-stuff onto 1 character, run 4-man squads to improve their weaponry, etc. I think making the weapon types themselves balanced against each other would be better
yes, but half were semi automatic which in current map size still beats action bolts, just not so drasticaly. I cannot claim that progression system as it is now is fine, but I´m also skeptical towards having none.
First thing first, I think we should see how meta shifts when current system is applied on bigger maps and then start with limiting stuff/reworking progression because if expected shift will became reality (SMG chads will be forced to partially switch to action bolts to be something else than free kill), then progression based on logic of unlocking new but still situational or more tactical toys would not be that bad, as action bolts (especially starting ones) and skill will still play first fiddle in system.
How would that be done?
There were plenty of rl cases of one weapon being all-around better than what it replaced, like the PPSH replacing the PPD- it was not only more reliable but cheaper as well.
For the PPDs, the first thing would be reload time, as the drum takes longer to reload than a magazine due to bulk and weight. The second thing would be ADS (aim down sights) time, as the heavier gun would be harder to lift up to eye height. Third would be weapon sway, as the heavier gun is harder to turn around with. 4th could be switch time, as, again, heavier weapon.
You trade magazine size / sustained DPS for convenience of use.
If even the shittiest, lowest damage dealing rifles jam, there is no use.
If you bring RNG directly into a game like that, you just ruin any skill-based gameplay you could develop. There is no way to plan out an engagement if you do not know whether you will actually be allowed to kill the enemies you plan to and know you should be able to kill if your gun did not jam.
Idk about you, but jonestly if they introduce any more RNG of any kind, it will show to me that the devs only know how to balance random chance and I will legit just leave the game outright.