# Weapon balance is going off the rails...

**URL:** <https://battlefieldforum.co/t/weapon-balance-is-going-off-the-rails/107012>\
**Category:** General Discussion\
**Created:** [June 16, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/weapon-balance-is-going-off-the-rails/107012 "2019-06-16T17:13:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YourLocalPlumber](https://battlefieldforum.co/user_avatar/battlefieldforum.co/yourlocalplumber/32/103277_2.png) [@YourLocalPlumber](https://battlefieldforum.co/u/YourLocalPlumber)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2019, 6:44pm UTC](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/weapon-balance-is-going-off-the-rails/107012/21 "2019-06-27T18:44:00Z")

</div>

> [@MarxistDictator](#):
>
> Seemed like a really odd choice, but as an LMG it would basically be an FG42 on steroids. That’s usually the sign its a bad fit for the game but they added it anyway.
> 
> The MG 34 still has an extremely competitive reload time and excellent control so I have no idea what the thought process was here. Even the low effort card doesn’t apply since its a new gun to the series. Its just bad, like M1916/P.16 Storm from BF1 level of bad but it didn’t get a glory period of being OP first. Just bad and outclassed from the gate.

They could’ve easily made it less controllable but higher RPM than FG42. Support lacks fast firing CQ LMGs. S200 would fit into that role nicely.

[Previous page](https://battlefieldforum.co/t/weapon-balance-is-going-off-the-rails/107012.md?page=1)