Balance (Discussion thread)

iHATEz9 wrote: »

Alright, sorry. I have lots of stuff to say in response but I was busy last night.

Maybe you're right about the QBZ. I just hate it and a lot of players I know hate it too. It's such a bad gun IMO. It's probably fine.

The Beretta AR-70 will be complained about when a good amount of players have it. Mark my words; it is simply too powerful, too accurate, and too stable.

SMGs should have box damage since they have no range in this game. I mean, box damage *should* only be useful in CQC and that is where SMGs are used. However, when you have an all rounded rifle like the XM8/G36K shooting through boxes, it becomes a very unfair advantage. No one is going to snipe you from behind a box with an MP5 or P90 in this game.

The Thompson is somewhat OP. If one could control its fire rate and slight recoil, it becomes usable at distance. I picked one up and just for the lulz of it, sniped across Egypt. Guess what... it's a one shot headshot. The Thompson has a 60 round magazine, is fairly accurate, can be used at distances and has decent power while the Uzi does 8 damage in the legs at close range. The designers clearly are not putting a lot of thought into balance...

...which brings me to the Uzi. It needs a huge buff. I'd say give it very good accuracy and expand its magazine capacity to 35 or 40. I mean, why make something that does literally no damage have horrible accuracy?

Oh, and Dragunov is a joke. Please give it AWM damage. I can understand its accuracy but I cannot understand why they made it suck with the damage.