Ok, seeing as how some folks weren't happy with the last poll and felt it was biased, here's a new one with any semblance of bias removed. Vote as you see fit. There will, however, be only two options. If you don't feel either accurately reflects your point of view, don't vote. If you want to elaborate, do so in the discussion thread here.
Incidentally, as you may have guessed, the question addresses two things: 1.) whether you view SMGs as a problem and 2.) whether you think the game should be changed. Because, to me at least, the fundamental issue is #2, I've lumped people who think there IS a problem but DON'T want any change into the second poll option.
Oh, and as far as WHAT you see as the problem with SMGs, I didn't specify that in the poll. Maybe you think that they perform just fine but should be more limited in availability. Maybe you'd prefer unlimited availability, but think they need nerfin'. Maybe you think that all they need is to be scaled differently or to add recoil or to have the crosshairs operate differently. Regardless, all those things will require a change.
And one final thing -- my own personal preference is the server side option that I've discussed in the other thread. I view this as a "change" because it would require the devs to do extra coding of some sort, even though it would be the server's option which way to play. So, while I view that as an "everyone wins" solution, I still see it as change.
My only SMG issue is with the Ppsh-41 not feeling "heavy" enough.
Besides that I feel SMGs are fine in 0.65...(voted no problem).
Ok, so you wouldn't want the PPSh changed to feel more "heavy" then? That'd be a change in and of itself.
dude, they said that your earlier poll was biased, but no one ever asked you to make another one. let it go...
No body is forcing you to read the thread. If you are so offended by it, then simply don't click the link. Common sense.
Submachineguns are fine the way the are, rifles need to do a little more damadge though. I voted 'no'.
Why do these idiots keep whining about SMG's. They're fine. I trust that the FH coders did their homework fine. Besides, just because there are a gazillion polls about this, doesn't mean anything will be changed.
How about the idea that the half the team equips themselves with SMGs? Unless you are the Soviets, this just doesnt work. Some things are FUBAR and need to be changed, some don't. A good middleground would have been nice. I voted "yes".
I posted the second poll actually because people DID say they wanted one. One that they felt was unbiased. And Kingrudolf, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an idiot. Let's try to keep it civil, shall we?
Lightning, if you're saying that SMGs are fine but rifles need changing, then you're for a change. Not necessarily with the SMGs themselves, but with infantry combat in general. That, at least, is a positive sign to me, even if you voted "no" (which, incidentally, says "No I don't want things to change"). I'd be happy with rifles being more powerful, along with perhaps a few other touch-ups.
Yes infintry combat is too smg orientated. So i voted.
KingrudolfWhy do these idiots keep whining about SMG's. They're fine. I trust that the FH coders did their homework fine. Besides, just because there are a gazillion polls about this, doesn't mean anything will be changed.
I have no doubt about the devs paper figures for damage and such. I understand you to be a hardcore realism player. How "realistic" is it to have every player manning a smg? The overwhelming majority of the war was fought with rilfes. Yet not in fh.