I have to agree, the respawning player should get a gun that's both common and useful instead of the Mosin-Nagant, which doesn't so much introduce a handicap as it changes the player into a sniper.
Unmodded AKM and M16A4 (since the A2 is actually an Insurgent weapon and acts as more of a side grade for the AKM) for Insurgents and Security respectively, or alternatively, a basic unmodded version of the gun they were already using. These guns are basic, cheap and actually make sense in that they're the mainstays of armed forces, from insurgents to militias. Heck, any unmodded gun would be fine, since the extra strength comes less from the gun and more from the mods (scopes, VFGs and mags).
The problem with the Mosin Nagant is that it doesn't act as a handicap so much as it turns the user into a sniper. It's lack of versatility means that it forces a certain play style on the player instead of just acting as a basic gun that the player moves up from. I get that there's supposed to be a penalty in the way of being confined to a basic gun if you die, but the problem with the Mosin is that it doesn't just act as a basic gun so much as it acts as a complete change in role for the player (being turned into a sniper) and thus isn't all that much fun overall.
Can we please get some of it for the regular coop, with AI that sets up actual beaten zones and defenses, responds to suppression, retreats, regroup and attacks in force.
The increased accuracy could be limited to Hardcore co-op, but the other changes all seem like they would massively improve the standard co-op exoerice and make it feel more immersive. Stuff like a better AI would also make the use of things like smoke, frags and flashbangs better appreciated and curb the rampant rushing
Also, could you please curb the ability of the bots to lay down accurate fire while moving, something that's especially jarring when you're pinned by a bot firing accurately at you from over 50m away while walking diagonally.
@max80 because it creates a perverse incentive. There's having a problem and then there's inviting more of the problem.
While the problem already exists, adding exclusive guns would just create an incentive to make the problem much worse by attracting people who will play for the exclusive guns rather than the role.
@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.
I'd rather not have this, and I'm saying this as a commander main.
A bigger headache than not having observers is observers who don't actually do their job and stick with you/don't maintain proximity/run off and ignore you when you need to call in support.
Adding in extra guns exclusive to the Observer class just attracts more people who clutter up the class and act as a liability rather than playing to their role. Such people are a triple liability, since they; don't do their own job, prevent others from doing the job and prevent the commander from doing his own job.
More often than not, I can get observers by asking; a much bigger headache are people who fill up the observer role, play like a rifleman (ignoring the commander) and thus prevent people who are actually going to be useful from taking the role (something that the proposed change would greatly exacerbate by attracting more of this kind of player).
I think that most of us can agree that being unarmoured is far too viable in the game. The buffs to stamina and speed are substantial, and you lose out on little to nothing compared to light armour.
I think that a large reason for light armour feeling meh is the fact that it offers little to nothing when compared to running around unarmoured. If unarmoured were a one shot kill from primaries, lugh armour would become a worthwhile investment.
I think that a fair trade would be to make unarmoured a one shot kill from all primaries, but make it cost -1 (which grants some reward for going unarmoured in the form of a point to spend on your weapons). Heck, make it cost - 2 if the hit from being a one shot kill is too much.
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.
@MarksmanMax true, but working on 2 different patches at a time is a logistical nightmare. So the team would likely work on 1 patch at a time.
Now, I think that we're long overdue for some new content, and that's likely what the team is working on, hence the long gap of over a month.
Though I do hope the new patch comes soon, since the game is in desperate need of fresh content.