Re: What is an LMG supposed to be in 2042?
@Bolvard Indeed, LMGs have similar stats akin to older games but with the removal of suppression, they have been given no 'compensatory buff' in return.
Forum Discussion
4 Replies
- @Trokey66 I cannot compare well with older titles but the LMGs, (at least the Avancys) seem to have a smaller spread increase per shot than other guns. Maybe it alludes to better accuracy in sustained fire but maybe the randomization of the recoil after X shots negates that.
- @UP_Hawxxeye Couldn't go into the exact specifics of their stats but relatively speaking, compared to other weapon classes, they have the negatives of previous games but lack the major compensatory positive that was suppression.
With suppression gone, that 'positive' hasn't been replaced with anything so the become almost pointless as every other weapon class has better stats. BFV tried doing things differently with more stationary LMGs. But that wasn't really very fun for anyone.
Weapons are a "joke" in computer-games. In real life, soldiers almost only use ARs and LMGs are stationary weapons. In games LMGs and SMGs have to behave unrealistic and the ARs have to be nerfed, for things to make any "sense" - otherwise SMGs/LMGs would be more or less useless and ARs dominate at all ranges when playing as infantry. The problem is that Dice has to make the guns behave unrealistic, but players still insists on comparing the guns in the game, to how real-life guns works. I think BF1 and BF4 worked ok regarding LMGs and Dice should look at how things were balanced in those games.
Personally, I don't think suppression was any fun in BF3/BF4/BF1. Just spraying a gun "without aiming" should not really be a viable game-play mechanic and I think the game is better without suppression. If Dice can find a way of implementing suppression without just introducing a lot of weapon-spread on the receiving end, perhaps it could work.
I tried playing with the PKP today. It’s actually unusable.
