Re: SMGs still too good?

Nothing wrong with the smg’s it’s the other guns that are so poor

i T1 the lcmg it was painful till i switch to short barrel  close combat rounds. but yea i feel if ur lighting up a sniper they should have flinch or something 

@emerson1975 of course I do, that is essentially what I wrote in MY op.

Let’s set it straight before trokey starts throwing a hissy…snipers have barely any scope sway or bullet drop thus easy to use but damage isn’t great  depending on ammo used BUT a gamer new to the game could pick them up an play easily

@emerson1975Damage is good enough to still OHK on the most part and that is part of the problem.

How does a weapon being 'easy' especially if they can OHK make them 'poor' compared to SMGs?

Indeed, I would argue that SMGs are 'easy' compared to other weapons so does that make them poor too?

And drama queen? Me? I'm not the one spamming all the hate threads with "DICE are meanies and and rubbish, oh woe is me.....".

There is no drama or hissy fits in this thread unless/until you bring them.

No! Don't mess with my MP9!

I've just unlocked the previously OP PP and that certainly didn't seem too strong. The damage range is clearly less than it was and the assault rifles don't seem to be outclassed by it at range.

@emerson1975 Totally agree. What is the point of giving us huge open maps and then weapons with COD range limitations?

Sniper rifles should be able to reach out to a thousand metres effectively, but take skill to use. Make them slow to aim and inaccurate when standing (you currently get no accuracy bonus for kneeling or going prone).

LMGs should be effective out to 500m, Assault rilfes minimum 300m and SMGs between 100 to 150m. Even pistols should be lethal (but not necessarily accurate) out to 100m. Shotguns would be dependent upon load.

The poor effectiveness of the weapons just means most people play meta and you end up with tight balls of combat with huge empty spaces.

@Trokey66 Not contradictory, just agreeing with the other post answering your OP question. No SMGs are not too powerful, the other weapons are too weak. The answer to a weapon type being too powerful is usually a nerf, when what we need is a buff to other weapon types to make them more effective at longer ranges than an SMG.

SMGs should be effective at  close range, but over 100m they should begin to lose effectiveness and rifles, LMGs, etc take over. When even sniper rifles start to lose effectiveness at 150m, then of course the close quarter weapon will be ascendant.

@Trokey66 As I said before, I feel that the problem is that they have brought effective ranges down on all weapons to SMG territory. We have huge maps, but effective range of even sniper rifles starts to drop at 150 m. Instead of bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator, stretch things out and make weapons effective at different ranges and for different tasks.

Currently the only real difference between LMGs, Rifles and SMGs seems to be magazine size and recoil/spread. The game mechanics seem to be that SMGs have a lower caliber round, and therefore do not recoil as much, so are much more accurate on full auto. While that is to a degree true, past 100 to 150 m, accuracy should be poor (even on semi). Assault rifles should be able to reach out much further, but take a bigger accuracy hit if the trigger is held down for more than a short burst. LMGs are designd to lay down fire, but not necessarily be accurate (suppressive fire on an area). Snipers and DMRs are semi or bolt action, and designed to reach out more accurately, but penalise them by making them slow to aim and extremely inaccurate while moving, with accuracy improving as you stand, kneel and go prone.

The current nerf/balance models seem to concentrate on close range combat and just bring everything down (which essentially ends up creating the no real difference you mention). Make different weapons effective at different ranges for different purposes and you have to make a decision in a loadout. Keep nerfing everything for use in a tight CQB box and everyone just moves from one meta to the next as the nerfs appear (Just like COD).

@Trokey66 I understand you point of them being too effective in the close quarter battles currently, but that was my point. With the large maps we have, why do we have short range weapons? the damage and accuracy drop offs at such short range just means everyone fights in little clusters, with the rest of the map being driven (or more likely run) across by respawning players. Push the range of weapons out that are supposed to be effective at longer ranges and more of the map will be used, while at the same time removing dominance of SMGs.

If the other weapons get an effective range buff (with the balances I mentioned before) then the SMG would still be dominant (potentially matched by shotguns) at close quarters, but other weapons would be able to engage from further out than the SMG could.

@Rusty RatNo, I expect to lose against an SMG in CQC but not at range, that is the problem!

If you increase the effective range of all other weapons to compensate, you are essentially making the maps smaller in terms of engagements.

There are complaints of a lack of infantry focused combat and by that, they mean Locker/Metro type stuff.  There are areas where that can occur but the range of weapons often means an approach is thwarted before close encounters can fully develop.

@Trokey66 But if you don't increase the effective range of the other weapons outside of close quarters distance, the only solution to the SMG being to effective would be to nerf the SMG. As combat ranges for most weapons are essentially close quarters already, just how close would the SMG have to be restricted? Or would you propose a nerf to damage, ROF, etc?