With the US weapon pack being announced I decided to make a video about my thoughts on it, and bring alternatives on weapons that I think could have been used instead or come in the future updates/DLC. As I do not agree with the inclusion of US guns.
5 Likes
Very well thought out and made. I agree with a lot of the points. Especially about the part where listening just to the community can make the game lose realism, and/or the original feel. IMO Soviet weapon would have made more sense.
3 Likes
Thank you, I think a problem that can arise within the community that sometimes when people bring feedback and critism it can lead to them being called hater. That kind of thing doesn’t help the devs much in my opinion. Because one cant except a game to be great, when only positive things are said. Nothing is flawless and something can always be improved.
2 Likes
This is so true. Sadly the fanbois and their groupies have no idea that they’re doing a disservice to the game and the devs.
1 Like
Man so much work you put there to reach obvious conclusions, but it´s good you did, not everyone thinks the same way or is able to reach the same conclusions.
Personally the Soviet pack would make much more sense (RPK LMG, RPG7 and Dragunov SVD).
But they might add it later…there is room for NATO and USSR weapons pack…just not room for it on the Plundra lol.
2 Likes
I have a feeling soviet weapons will be added in the next paid dlc or free update down the line, with their presence on Östertörn now being confirmed in the Farmlands after DEC update. It makes sense that we would be able to use their stuff.
1 Like
Surprisingly no push-back. Glad to see that the message will get across, because I never know if my rambles ever reach the eyes of a developer. The research that was done unsettles me, because now I have to step up my research game
1 Like
US is the biggest market for pretty much anything, and I suppose this game is no exception. They are trying to squeeze more money of this market. It’s not bad thing as long it’s just an optional DLC that some people may be interested in. I’m personally not interested in more weapons (regardless paid or not, US/Soviet/whatever). I’d prefer fewer weapons with better balance (hello useless grenade launcher), but ok
1 Like
Sweden was neutral during the cold war. Officially. But had strong ties with US. So in my opinion the US probably would have air drooped weapons in Sweden if something like this or a russian invasion happened.
3 Likes
This is the most neutral and reasonable comment I’ve seen about this. Good take.
Yeah, I read up on that and found it weird when researching about Olof Palme. After Olof Palme stepped down and someone else took place, there were communications re-established with Sweden and an invite to the white house from U.S.
So remaining neutral, even in the video above, wasn’t neutral by U.S. own definition. It was like them calling out that Sweden can’t call themselves neutral when they’re subjective and there was something written about Olof criticizing U.S. or one of those allies. This is why I can easily agree with the points in the video, but where it won’t be saying much about historical accuracy, since the timeline is really going to start deviating with what… The Soviet soldiers and camps appearing now
1 Like
That part of the video was a joke, hence the text “totallly not an overexaggeration” fading in. If the US actually becomes a main ally wich I even doubt it will, then I’d not uninstall the game. But I would express my dissatisfaction with it.
Pressuring when and how? I’ve already uninstalled the game to make space for Cyberpunk 2077 on my SSD, but that has nothing to do with me pressuring the Devs to do anything. I never announced I deleted the game, I just did. I will install just as well when I want to play that again. I make it very apparent where I feel the game is going and just agreed with a video’s contents 
Did you take a hyperbole and focus solely on that? I think we’ve had other discussions as I remember your name, but I don’t think you’ve understood me in previous statements as well. If you feel like you need my view on the video explained and as well as any of my other statements you’ve had trouble understanding, we can arrange a voice call. It’s gonna be easier that way. DM me and we’ll get the discussion rolling
That’s understandable. The line between historical and new timeline splitting stuff is obvioisly taking it’s shape. I personally think that NATO and the Soviets have had more involvement in the game and lore so far. Their weapons should have come first. Well yes USA is part of NATO but on another continent, it’s just that American weapons are so common in video games in general it would have been nice to see something different.
True, while I dont have the stats of the amount of US based players. It is a big markert. I’m all for new weapons packs in the game, but rather not behind a paywall because it could lead to them being a new meta. It could or not, they aren’t out yet. So I guess we will have to see. If they are going to fucos on that market, then I hope it’s done in a way that doesn’t sacrifse the unique aspects of the game.
How about we start another holywar of battle rifles? Like FAL vs. G3?
That was intence rivalry parallel and comparable to M16 vs AK back in the day.
As for “strong-per-shot” secondary slot weapon it’s hard to think anything practical.
Prime contender is as famous as being cringeworthy, the Desert Eagle is in it’s early production stage ('83) but that’s way too expensive toy for civilian market.
French Manurhin MR73 from seventies, while being sniper-grade high-end nigh-indestructible from full-power ammo revolver (no f’ng joke - bipods and optics were needed, some pieces claim to be had counted 7 digits of shots), but again, toy’s pricey and for connoisseurs, such as police special forces. Oh also it being by default .357 ammo or .32 s&w long for sporting versions.
Other extreeme - sawn-off shotgun. Considering how full-size shotguns suck grease pumps in this game - it is even worse.
1 Like