|
Post by mw0swedeking on Dec 27, 2009 3:09:29 GMT -5
Why don't the SMGs have better reload times than the ARs? It seems like a great big help up close, and should go to the close range weapon. Instead they give it to the already overpowered, so called "mid to long range" ARs. What's up with that? Do you think the SMGs would be more balanced vs. the ARs with this advantage?
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 27, 2009 4:41:55 GMT -5
I would actually be totally for this change. Nothing like a reload that's just a bit too long to kill momentum on what is suited for a rushing weapon.
I see nothing wrong with changing it so SMGs are fast and Rifles slower, although it of course will never be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 27, 2009 5:06:19 GMT -5
Depends on your viewpoint.
I see absolutely no sense in making it faster for an SMG user as the process of changing mags is pretty much exactly the same as you'd find in an AR.
I'd expect it to be slower for hand fed options e.g shotguns/rifles where you have to manually insert each cartridge/bullet/shell, but not for an automatic weapon with standard magazine feeds.
Besides it's already manic enough with people flying round maps using LW whilst hip-spraying, they don't need any further assistance in speeding this up!
|
|
|
Post by mw0swedeking on Dec 27, 2009 20:54:45 GMT -5
I was thinking about tier one perks when I thought of this... SMGs burn through ammo quickly, so I always want Scavenger with them, but their reload is also very slow, so I want sleight of hand. Assault rifles don't force me to worry so much in this regard, so I thought it would be better balance.
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 28, 2009 4:30:35 GMT -5
But this argument doesn't work because ARs already reload faster than SMGs. So at the very least SMGs should be buffed up to AR level.
|
|