DICE TeamHeres my question
I dont like- dying much so i choose weapins for their versatility. Ie particular weapons that have capability in various areas like stg44, amg 42, fg 42, mass44, bren gun, zh24 etc.. On maps where both long and close range are often required and you are suggesting i die and change my load out?
Stop stating what a gun should and shouldnt be. Let players decide. The gun balance for BFv was actually pretty good prior and i hope the rebalance will be better than the impact of the 5.2 update.
The reason why players might use one weapon over another often had little to do with ttk and more to do with control or behaviour. Ie lots of people use the stg 44 not because it was great on auto, but because accuracy vs rof vs magasine size made it easy to use vs something like the ribolles which required more ads and better fire control. Ie it was a better weapon across a bredth of game circumstance vs specific behaviours.
Now if you combinethat with a map like devastation where most engagements are short you will see certain weapons dominate, but not what you think as people will use mag size to compensate for lower accuracy, particularly if theyare not good shots as but an example or will hipfire more and thus will have preferences for that. Same with Thompson and the russian sub- great for hipfiring but some people were greatwith ads as well for these weapons. Not many people but some.
Now combine with al sudan or other large broad maps and people change their load out on how they play.
The mistake you have made is deciding how people are meant to playwith certain weapons and simply put, the gameis too complex to simplify how weapon should or shouldnt be used. Yes it means some weapons will be under utilised, but not because they dont have a niche, rather just because people havent worked out how to use them.
