Ritterick

How about we work on 20v20 first, and implement reasonable class limits back in from that, first?

Honestly, the only thing these scopes need is the same sort of treatment that iron Sights got- just pull the scopes closer to the screen, giving larger view space, but no additional Magnification. Please don't overdo them again.

The only problem I have with this idea of statistic based guidance is the lack of adjustment for numerical advantage. For a quick example- If 150 people use a Johnson, and get on average 3 kills each, 2 close, and 1 midrange, you get 300 close kills and 150 at midrange... 100 people use the AVS, getting on average 4 kills, each, 2 close and 2 midrange, making for 200, and 200... But 300 people use the STG, getting 2 kills on average, 1 close, and 1 midrange, resulting in 300 close and 300 midrange. But without adjusting for the quantity of use- which it looked like, then, that RETO had, and still cares not for, any metric rendering for it's actual usage... looking at just the number of kills, the STG looks like the best weapon out of the bunch, when it actually ends up simply being the most used. And, frankly, from the state of weapons back then, and the constant GE overpopulation, I expect that this is what actually bears out to higher German weapon stats, on that chart.

I don't take the solutions presented to me either, I just want those solutions moved to where I am, instead. Because doing anything is hard.

You're not going to "fix" people who just don't want to play factions other than Germany. On the other hand, the people who aren't satisfied with the US/SU experience can be addressed. For that, the solution is not nerfs, but slight alterations. Start moving the M2 from a SMG like role, more towards Midrange. Improve the Quality of Life for Soviet SMGs, make them just the slightest bit more manageable. Improvements to the general feel of control over your actions will leave the players feeling more as if they screwed up, rather than feeling like they got screwed over.

I'd get behind this idea- it'd put a more obvious emphasis on the US/SU v GE RTS focus, and probably help the two of them have their Alliance back.

You managed to miss the point entirely, well done. Again, bad individual matches, and even streaks of losses happen. It's part and parcel in playing semi-competitively against human opponents.

To be fair; movement penalties are better on the MP40, RoF is better on the MP40, Damage is very comparable as well, though the STG does have the slightest advantage. I do see your point, but it's still the closest comparison I can draw for the Carbine. Sure.

Never had FPS losses? Did you play in 2015, with the MG-42 nerfs? 2016 with the M2 Koreabine? 2017, with the Johnson and M1919? 2018 when the Soviets finally started realizing how good the AVS actually is? As to no unenjoyable matches, I'm pretty sure that I played half of my 2000 hours in 2017 literally just walking between points, because of GEs under motorized infantry in war. Or days where there was nothing but HE camping spawns with the armor that we never had... it's a constant of H&G. It happens to every side.

On this, you and I are very much so agreed.

Wait, did you just have a revelation? Huh. I'm proud of you- you went from "let us have GE weapons" to "having something doesn't instantly fix things". It only took... however long.

Yeah. But you have them. Which is literally what you just asked for.

Or, perhaps, maybe possibly, he's got more soldiers, and equipment on the GE side, and losing access to his stuff because someone else is throwing a temper tantrum over weapon differences seems a little bit ridiculous.

That's... more than a bit excessive

This × 100. Seriously guys, as a GE main, playing with others was how I "got gud". Wouldn't say I'm anywhere near the very best... but still, the same can be achieved by every other faction. The folks I played with made it fun... don't worry about winning 100% of battles, just 1% more than you did the previous day. Even if that means literally just getting one win with them, for a little while. Because improvement for us wasn't instant- why would you expect it to be for them?

I'm still a proponent of slowing the M2 to its actual RoF as a max (about 750) and giving it more range and better handling as a tradeoff. No other changes... because it'd still be slightly better than the StG in close like that, and it would also get back some of it's more distant range capacity back.

Remember that the Johnson was intended as a Paratrooper MG, by RETO, and had to have it's EQ points reduced, so paras could have any ammo.

They pretty much have. Captured weapons, yay. So, this is a long sentence, I'll try to break it into it's points. 1.) I have full access to all three arsenals. Yeah, I main GE, and have since the steam launch of the game, but don't mistake that for me playing no other factions. I simply know where my war priorities lie. I know for a fact that all three factions have usable SAs, BAs, LMGs, and SMGs, despite their differences. In addition, though the M2 is difficult to control, this is far off from impossible to control. Much like the AVS, it requires TGG for best effect, sure- but for this shared downside, both are superior to the StG in CQB. If you want the M2 to become better at midrange, for the sake of balance, it needs to lose some of it's CQB potential. If you want the Johnson to be more stable than the MG34/MG42 for use as a midrange assault rifle, the way it used to be, it, too, needs some kind of downside. This is the core of balance. The downside that the STG gets for its good control is the lowest RoF and damage output of the top tier automatics. And the downside the STG gets for it's better midrange is the worst CQB of the ARs. Given that Kills don't win matches, captures do, and for captures, you need CQB... this seems a fair tradeoff. 2.) Reto is very heavily GE biased. This is why the allies both had 1944 era fighters against a 1940 model, until 2018. This is why the Chaffee, Hellcat, and E8 reigned supreme in the first three classes of tanks you get access to until 2017. But maybe you mean the weapons. This is why the M2 Carbine, a 750 rate of fire weapon, reaches 1000r/m, while the MG42 doesn't actually reach 1200, as it's supposed to, and the PPSh doesn't reach 1000, like it's supposed to. This is why the M1 Garand is the best of the Semi-Automatic Rifles. This is why the M1903 has more damage and a faster rate of fire than the Mosin or K98. This is why US infantry had access to their Para LMG, when the germans didn't, and the Soviets still don't even have one. This strong German bias is why Germany was unbeatable in war, until 2018- wait... 3.) I have no problems in CQB with the StG. This doesn't mean that it isn't objectively slower at damage Output than the M2 Carbine, M1919 Browning, M1941 Johnson, M1A1 Thompson, PPS43, PPSh-41, AVS-36, DP-28, DT-29, MT, M1 Garand, SVT-40, and even the PPD-40, if it's modded to the extreme. The only Automatic which it is on objectively equal footing with, in CQB is the M3 Grease Gun. Surprisingly, I've managed to kill people using every last one of those weapons, with every last one of those weapons. And even using Bolt actions. In CQB. Perhaps my arguments are more based on the weapons performance rather than mine. ... nah, that'd be just silly. 4.) Using your argument... the M2 Carbine is better than the MP40 at CQB than the MP40. If you are having problems with it, that doesn't mean it's a bad gun, you just suck. 😛 5.) The MG42 is only as OP for CQB as the Carbine is. And for every argument you make about the Carbine's handling, remember that the MG42 has the same problem half again. It's more uncontrollable, without TGG, more effected by strafing, more wildly unpredictable from the hip. It's more accurate with more range, sure... but remember that the MG42 requires crouching for that Accuracy... and has twice the reload time. But nice diversion again.

You have clearly never used the MG34. Or the PPD. Or the PTRD. Or the M1 Carbine. Or the pocket pistols... or... The AVS and STG are both better at midrange, but only the AVS can be made as good at CQB. The M2 is best thought of as an extended range Thompson+. A little bit more RoF for better CQB, with a little bit more range, with the tradeoff of more Sway, but the Accuracy is around the same. The StG is pretty similar in it's comparison to the MP40- only it's more range and more accuracy, for less rate of fire giving worse CQB. The AVS is the only one which is truly versatile, of the three.

... M2 Carbine is controllable with TGG- much the situation that was required for the MG42 for the last 4 years- are you saying that dependency is imbalanced? Because the GE faction got that downside first. In addition, you don't even need full ROF for the M2 to out perform the STG in CQB. Just one ROF mod, and literally nothing else, and the Carbine out DPSs a full modded STG. This continues until ranges beyond 49m... and, to quote most US players, no sensible GE player would equip the Barrel on an StG... which is required to increase the farr damage, and slow the damage falloff enough to keep that situation constant beyond 49m... but surprisingly, the addition of the Ammo mod on the Carbine renders that null at long range anyway. But hey, numbers lie. Johnson is still better than the MG34, and they're both T2 MGs, so should be roughly equivalent. Are you arguing for an MG34 buff? The MG13 is too stable, yes, that point I don't argue. The M1 Garand is better in every measurable statistic relative to combat effectiveness than the G43, with the two singular exceptions of them having the same far damage, and the G43 having two more bullets in the magazine. The Thompson is better than the MP40 at CQB, killing in the same number of shots against heavyset players, but with a higher rate of fire. The M1919 is still more accurate than the MG42, and still has more damage. It has a lower rate of fire, sure, but only as much lower as the STG has vs the Carbine... which is a higher portion of the rate of fire of either of them. So if that difference is irrelevant for the Carbine, then it's less than irrelevant in the MGs.

You know, US players won't get fixed in a say- just like GE Coordination didn't only take a day. One step at a time. Get them in voice comms first. Find some US players willing to hop on coms, and just fix one thing a day with them... Like pointing out that taking points gives them more credits, and instead of demanding they rush the point to be your meat shield (this is how it usually ends up coming across when an angry vet is raging about the team not taking points- I know, I've been on both sides of this)... just invite them along. Take it, with or without them, and eventually the greed for credits will have them following you in.

Weapon class. That's why all the MGs have the same EPs, and the Rifles have the same EP, and the SMGs and the pistols and mines and melee weapons, and-... I have a max RoF Carbine. It works well with TGG, as a product improved SMG, with a little bit extra reach.

To be Frank, let me give you the basics of my experience on the German side over the last several years: 1.) Teammates: So, generally speaking, most of your teammates are just as meh, as om the US, and SU sides. The difference comes in the number of Veteran players around. Out of a team of 18 US/SU players, you can generally expect about 10 people who have no vehicles, or idea of where to go. On a German team, this is usually about 8, instead. On that same US/SU team, you can expect maybe about 6 people who have a general idea of where to go... and of them, about 4 will have vehicles. For Germany, this number is usually the same, except all of them are motorized, rather than partial motorization. Finally, in the Veteran equation is where things really differ. For the US/SU, as you're a part of that team, if you're a veteran, you can generally expect only one other player in that general skill range. On average. For the GE side, you can expect Three. This is where the biggest difference truly comes from, on the field. Because your Veteran players are the ones who are well equipped, sure- but more importantly, they're familiar with their equipment, have the motorization to keep up aggressive play, and more importantly than either of those, generally speaking they have multiple good options. Your faction's AR/LMG of Choice for midrange, their SA for general purpose, and their SMG for CQB, as well as usually some kind of AT... and generally speaking, all of those characters are motorized. 2.) Equipment: Starting with vehicles... Recon planes are effectively all identical. They're well enough balanced that it doesn't really matter which one you have. Fighters, on the other hand, the germans have the worst T1 fighter... and the best T2 fighters. Worse still- remember that the T1 fighter is the fighter most of the current FW pilots fought against the P38 and Yak with for half a decade or longer. So, in order to achieve success, prior, enough to be the ones who had access to the FW190 immediately... they had to get very used to always flying as if they were outclassed- and this was very visible when Recon planes came out- most people would agree that they are roughly balanced... and yet, when Recon planes fought, generally German air supremacy was the result. This is also visible in heavy fighters- the pe3 and me210 are roughly comparable, and the P38 is the best of the three, just slightly... but the 210 generally achieves parity with the p38s, and the Pe3 is very underused... this is a direct result of the previous situation, where German pilots had to be better- to achieve parity. Tanks? SU and US Light tanks are better, and always have been. The only point where this might be argued is in the general purpose use of a Luchs. It's potentially better against infantry, light vehicles, and aircraft, though it suffers against other tanks. For the mediums, the panther and E8 are roughly equivalent, though the panther had more armor, and the E8 a better gun. The Soviets have the weakest of the three- but it's less than the difference between the Luchs, and chaffee, for a comparison. However, Frankly, T34s, M4s, and Pz4s hold more utility currently. And those three are so close to parity as to be almost identical. The Kubel is roughly equivalent to the Jeep, and both are actually slightly worse than the GAZ. The point of these cars is to allow for rapid assault of a point- usually the MG is, frankly, all but useless. The GAZ is the fastest of the three, by a slight margin, as well as being the most stable of the three, due to it's slightly wider size, and also, no barista is standing tall, just waiting to be shot in the head. The trucks are identical, and the GE finally have an APC where everyone doesn't spawn outside the armor. So that's nice. 3.) Weapons: The 3hk MP40 only works against non-HS users, so it's really just a tool against the less experienced portion of your team... and frankly, they don't usually make much effect on the Match anyway. Other than that outlier situation, the other faction's SMGs are actually better at CQB. Not by a very wide margin, we're talking about less than a tenth of a second better, but the difference is there. The MP34 is better than the PPD/M3, sure, but the MP40's biggest advantage is it's easier control... well, if an experienced player can't control his weapon, generally, they either pick a different setup, or aren't really an experienced player, now are they? The STG is the weakest of the ARs, by damage output. The funny thing is that, if the Carbine is run with TGG, and is managed well enough against an STG, just beyond the point where both hit their minimum damage... the Carbine is actually faster, because of its higher rate of fire. The only things that the STG has going for it were it's Accuracy and ease of use- Starting to notice a trend here? The G43 is solid and needs no improvement from where it is, however it is, by the numbers, the weakest of the SAs, with the lower damage values, and the lowest rate of fire... it's even technically outranged by the SVT, too. Though fights usually don't occur at a range where it matters. The K98 is slower than the Springfield, and less damaging, as well- again, not by much in either case, but as a tradeoff, it is ever so slightly more accurate. Though, being honest, this only really matters with 1hk builds... which are, again, really only effective against non HS users... Finally, for the MGs... the MG34 is statistically the worst LMG. The addition of the MG13 changed German fortunes on LMGs, as for a couple of years, the MG42 was nerfed to being worse than even the MG34. The only really effective LMG we had for a good while was the FG-42, can you imagine why there were constant requests to get that for infantry as well? But with the conefire rework, the 34/42 are finally usable again. The 13 is arguably too stable- but I'd personally rather just a minor nerf... and then a slight boost to the BAR/Johnson, bringing those three to parity slightly behind the FG-42... and the only reason I say that is because of their lower costs, and lack of scopes. So, for a quick recap, we have easier to use- but less technically capable weapons, and one flat out better weapon in the MG-13... and then there are our explosives. Mines are roughly equivalent, the Schreck is easier to use, but obscures your vision more than the bazookas, and the grenades... our cheap grenades are less effective than the equivalequivalents on the US/SU side, but cost the same... and our actually effective grenades are the most expensive. Surprise. Germany's weapon supremacy is mostly a myth. 4.) Coordination: This is the actual key to German success. There are more German clans- but not all of their members are veterans. In fact, it seems like the majority of the German clan base is the middle range of the skill set elaborated on earlier. This generally results in them being more sensibly equipped than the middle range of the other factions, explaining the higher rate of motorization. This also means that, generally, you're going to run into at least one squad actually running together, every single match. Even if it's only 3 players in voice comms, and their ability isn't the best of the Match, simply having 3 people in the right place at the right time becomes a decisive advantage. And that's the norm for the German side, where, for the US/SU, that's the outlier.... and that's what leads, more than anything, to German victories. Because even if the MG42 was actually an OP laser- and were buffed to being a 2hk, it wouldn't really matter, if it were off in the woods or on a mountain. On the other hand, even a well used PPD on point can be useful.

The G43 isn't weak- it's pretty good where it's at. It does, however, objectively match the lower damage numbers on the other Semi-Automatic Rifles. It has the lower Far damage of the Garand, and the lower Near damage of the SVT-40. It has the lowest fire rate, and without its advantage of a higher Magnification optic, it can't really be argued to be the best at range anywhere Near it's prior capability. It's not a bad Rifle at all- but then, the m1 Carbine objectively has more range than a pistol, and better damage when upgraded, than a stock pocket pistol. Does that mean that it's perfectly fine as is? Don't be intellectually dishonest.

Hah! That takes me back to RtCW days... but I don't think that would suit this game quite as well.