A number of questions within the survey ask about the satisfaction with Battle Rifles in general, including all Battle Rifles within this category, inclusding the G3, EBR, Mk17, SVD and FAL. However, I think that this does not accurately capture the issue within Battle Rifles, since the problem with these weapons is largely down to 2 weapons; the FAL (due to it's damage and wide availability) and the SVD (due to it's abundance and damage).

In general the issues with Battle Rifles (i.e. the FAL and the G3) come about because of their combination of wide availability and their controllable recoil. These weapons are already quite controllable on full auto as is, but their recoil is reduced to a trivial inconvenience (especially in light of their damage) by the addition of a foregrip, which reduces their recoil to the levels of assault rifles.

This makes high damage Battle Rifles too good as weapons, since they allow for high damage, high accuracy and their main real life drawback can be practically eliminated by the addition of a foregrip.

I would therefore like to suggest either increasing their recoil or nerfing the foregrip attachment for them, since this attachment basically negates their drawbacks and makes them into meta weapons.

@cool_lad said in A small point about the survey and foregrips:

This makes high damage Battle Rifles too good as weapons...

Eh, I wouldn't say that. If anything, I'd argue that this all makes battle rifles decent Insurgency weapons, compared to the ARs which are pretty garbage in comparison.

Battle rifles are only the meta currently because they're one of the few Sandstorm guns that feel like they deal any damage at all.

@MarksmanMax nailed it.

The FAL is about the same amount of hurty as the M1 carbine in DoI. Nowhere near the level of hurty as it was back in Ins2014. The issue is entirely that everything else is a paintball gun.

BUFF EVERYTHING FFS.

@whitby said in A small point about the survey and foregrips:

@MarksmanMax nailed it.

The FAL is about the same amount of hurty as the M1 carbine in DoI. Nowhere near the level of hurty as it was back in Ins2014. The issue is entirely that everything else is a paintball gun.

BUFF EVERYTHING FFS.

I have to strongly disagree here for the following reasons:-
A. Armour exists and is a thing in the game and should be viable.
B. Bullets don't instantly kill people unless you hit something vital.
C. The point is about how foregrips make Battle Rifles lose their biggest IRL weakness (their high recoil). A weakness that was a massive factor in armies abandoning Battle Rifles in the first place and moving to the far more controllable intermediate rounds. This means that there's no actual reason to pick ARs over BRs (the G3 and FAL to be precise), which is the inverse of how it should be (ARs should generally be better picks than BRs in terms of handling and recoil).

Foregrips in general offer way too much of a payoff for their points cost and are, alongside Incendiaries, practically a must pick. Their effects on recoil should be toned down substantially, especially for. Battle Rifles.

Foregrips are far too good in their current state, and the biggest issue created by them is that they make BRs so easily controllable that their biggest design disadvantage (extremely high recoil) is negated. Its analogous to having greased bolt give bolt action rifles the rate of fire of a semi auto rifle.

@cool_lad

A. A SAPI plate in real life will only stop rounds which hit the SAPI plate. In Sandstorm, it stops rounds which go over it and through the esophagus. Left of it and through the right lung. Right of it and through the heart. Reality has lethality. DoI has lethality. Ins2014 has lethality. Compared to Sandstorm, Call of Duty 4 has lethality since in that game the AI doesn't survive getting torso + limb shot consecutively by an M4. Imagine if Sandstorm has awesome lethality like Call of Duty and wasn't overcasualised more than Call of bloody Duty. Making everybody a bullet sponge is not acceptable.

B. Bullets don't instantly kill people unless you hit something very specific which is vital - the brain. This isn't the point. In reality and on average, 80% of the time you get shot in the head or torso by an AR15, you are down and out on the first hit. On average, 1.4 hits anywhere on the body of a human being with an AR15 is the end of that threat. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc )Being shot in the limbs, being shot from extreme long range, sure, make it survivable once. Tanking a 5.56 through the heart and lungs at point blank range 100% of the time without needing body armour from any ingame 5.56 weapon is bullshit. Reality is more lethal than Sandstorm. Games with far superior mechanical gameplay (DoI, Ins2014, even Call of Duty) are more fun than Sandstorm because they have higher lethality. This is inexcusable. This is the issue, fixing the FAL meta in any way without addressing this issue is putting a bandaid on a sucking chestwound and expecting the bleeding to stop.

C. I couldn't care less. If the foregrips are too good then up the supply cost.