What makes or breaks a good weapon?

With the upcoming Meta change and the addition of a “Battle Rating System”, a thorough discussion about general weapon performance is needed.

Once the update hits, we will most likely see a lot of weapons having a very questionable BR, so talking about this stuff before it happens is advised.

Now, obviously there is a large range of preferences when it comes to gun stats and mechanics dependent on each of our own ways of playing the game, yet I would like to present my own view on what makes me pick a weapon, and I invite all of you to do the same:

-whats the role of the weapon?

Well obviously every gun is supposed to be used for shooting the enemy, yet this question should be asked nonetheless if we want to determine the overall effectiveness of said firearm.

When I pick a weapon I will ask myself: is the weapon a “close range, mid range or long range weapon?” Or is it even a generally useful gun at all ranges?

To give you guys an example here, the MKB is basically a mid range weapon that can defend itself well enough in closer ranges while still being accurate enough to be useful at long range combat. Now if we switch to the MP43/1-the next line up version of the MKB we will not meet a straight up “improved version”, instead performance and role will have changed, even if minor. A bit less accurate but with a higher rate of fire will lower its ability to fight at longer ranges, but will give it more power up close.

We see this with many weapons in the game, where the next line up weapon is usually just the same gun but with a higher rate of fire - which in general is making the weapon more powerful at closer ranges, but can on some weapons also be negative.

-whats the potential power of the weapon?

The logical next question here, yet before we ask ourselves this, we should again look at the purpose of a gun and how to use our arsenal in order to secure victory.

The whole gameplay “loop” consists of two teams pushing and applying constant pressure towards the games objective points, until one side gets pushed back enough to secure the said objectives.

Now lets imagine that a combatant using a "bolt action rifle, spots an enemy close by. He aims at him, shoots him and secures the kill. What will now happen is that his hostile will have taken over the control over one of his remaining AI Soldiers trying to do the same - this will go on until one of the players squads are “wiped” and beaten. Thus the potential power of a weapon is based on how fast you can use said weapon to “wipe out” squads. Potentially a bolt action with 5 rounds in its magazine will kill 5 combatants before needing to reload, while a STG with a 30 round magazine has the potential to quickly take out a large amount of Soldiers, the regular bolt action does not - HOWEVER what needs to be addressed again is the role of a weapon, and in a long range support scenario, a bolt action will probably outperform the STG.

Yet, since most fighting takes places at close to mid range, the STG remains overall “superior” and a much more logical pick.

-what then is the meaning of “DPS” in Enlisted?

In a classical shooter dps usually determines the overall effectiveness of a firearm, because the power of a weapon will always be compared to “how fast you can kill your opponent”.

In Enlisted however, your opponent isn’t simply one person. Thus squad wipe power will instead be the focus here.

Now of course there are exceptions to this, one player might for example pick a FG 42 over a STG because of its very fast rate of fire combined with more damage per hit but smaller magazine, resulting in a burst damage weapon - meaning that dps isn’t irrelevant in Enlisted, its just not the “main” attribute of a weapon.

-so what then is the true effective power of weapon?

If we now really want to know the true power of a weapon, we will have to combine all previous points and add the last important variable:

“Usability”

Because what good is a gun with a million dps that however can’t make you hit your target?

Or what good are great accuracy stats when your view is blocked by a horrible sight picture?

And whats the purpose of a low recoil weapon when its deviation is too bad to make accurate follow up shots anyways?

And to come to an end … what’s the point behind a super high rate of fire, when your magazine capacity is too small to make good use of it anyways?

2 Likes

Now for those who have a real life, here the short version:

An effective weapon is determined by:

-its potential accuracy
-its damage per bullet
-its rate of fire
-its magazine capacity
-its recoil
-its sight picture
-its reload speed
-its deviation penalty
-its potential range and damage drop off

And shortly its squad wipe power, its dps, its effective range and its controllability.

5 Likes

Im wondering what BR they will give MP38 and how they will distinguish the Mbs and StGs and MPs since they mostly differ in rof.

2 Likes

What makes or breaks a weapon in Enlisted?

Theoretical DPS is worth crap if the weapon is so uncomfortable to use that you can’t land hits where you want to.

As such, best guns in game must have:

  1. low or no arbitrary dispersion;
  2. comfortable sights;
  3. manageable recoil.

Once these three pillars are a given, one can start arguing which gun in this club is the best depending on other stats.

5 Likes

Combination of stopping power, accuracy, sights, mag capicty. Equalized

I prefer high damage lower rpm over low damage high rpm

1 Like

About that, I like to use the Kiraly as an example for recoil, its a SMG with not the best “potential accuracy / deviation” however you usually won’t make any use of it anyways because of its tremendous recoil.

Still I personally think it is nonetheless pretty effective for what it is, yet there might be others that hate using it because it has too much recoil.

Thats the reason why i keep talking about “potential accuracy” and “potential power”

Because in the right hands some weapons are beasts that otherwise are rather uncontrollable.

Interesting, many folks hate the M2 specifically because of its sight picture.

Yeah, but the thing is that you don’t even have to use its sights.

2 Likes

Interesting debates about which weapon is good or bad are held here. Recoil, dmg, magazine… But at the end of the battle, the only thing that matters is whether your weapon is competent against your opponent. Because, although the Mp35 is a good weapon, you will be at a serious disadvantage in a technical sense if it is again put on the same level as the PPD-40. AND now the whale is not coming with the mkb to somehow pull the team out of the mess. 10 PPD vs 10 Mp35, who do you think will have an advantage in close combat around capture points? Of course, if your team is better, all obstacles can be overcome… and as we know, MM usually brings together competent teammates.
But the same is true for the ppsh-41 (71 rounds) Beretta pair. Or in the case of the FG-42 M2 carbine. And then I will mention only a few of the “funny” pairings.
And these were committed by those who will now figure out what suits each other.

3 Likes

The PPD is better for the short range, but the MP35 is better for mid-range.

  1. It changes how you’ll have to play a bit, which I’m fine with.
  2. There are shotgun options. Despite players not liking shotguns due to low rate of fire, they do their job very effectively. You want to play CQB and don’t think the SMG is worth it? Grab a shotgun.

It is the player that defines a good weapon

1 Like

i was one of them, but i started using m2 as close range with hipfire and i like it more than thompson. this would be 3 times better weapon if it had decent sights.

2 Likes

Interesting, you know…Im not playing much as allies thus I still don’t have full access to many weapons, tho I have picked up the M2 quite often enough, I personally would rate that gun at least one battle rating lower than MP43/1 and early FG42, performance wise I would put it on the same level as MKB, any one disagree with me here?

Well. (Almost) Everyone can have an M2.

True, yet also everyone can have a FG42, and when we say that the M2 carbines are only good at close range, it would definitely be inferior to the FG that is at least equal in close combat while also being pretty nice at mid range.

To me M2 Carbine is PPsH 41 on roids. You get a zyllion magazines with large ammo pack, you reload it instantly AND you can always just build yourself more ammo.
As for its rating, I think it’s on part with the Mkb (slightly worse at medium+ range but a destroyer of worlds below that)
Haven’t bothered unlocking the FG42 yet, so can’t really talk about that, but I don’t think I’ll like it much
It honestly kind of depends on your playstyle too.

M2 better than PPSH? very interesting information im getting here, man I need to finish Allied campaigns for a better understanding for balance alone.

~sad axis main noises~

You only get 4 mags with the PPSH, the RoF is too high even for 71rnd mags, it’s an SMG, it kinda sucks at anything but short range
Upgraded M2’s are basically perfect to just burst wipe entire squads, it’s stupidly accurate and you can even deal with things at somewhat medium range if you know what you are doing. And you always have a fresh mag because either you kill everyone before you go through 10 of them, die, or manage to build an ammo point for yourself

1 Like

oh boy yeah… that makes things complicated again for me, u know I for example rate the PPSh “about” on the same level as the Kiraly and the MKB, if you now say the M2 outperforms the PPSH that would mean that it should be again on a higher BR than those weapons.

284 bullets max doesnt sounds low.

4 Likes