did they reomve the M4?

[Gryff]

In todays patch they added a new weapon but it seems the m4 has gone for it? Will it be back in future builds?

[TARS]

I honestly don't see the advantage of removing the M4, they should have the M4A1 and the Mk.18. If they want to remove something let it be the M1A1.

[345am]

So I am not blind and it's really gone? I want my favorite vweapon back.

[Parker]

Yeah I miss the M4 as well, the MK18 just isn't the same.

[TARS]

It's great that they added the Mk.18, but it's illogical to remove one of the games standard issued weapons like the M4.

Give us both!

Besides I'm sure they aren't stupid enough to remove a weapon like the M4A1 for no reason.

[Gryff]

I want it back, too :<

[Greg]

psst: They probably handle exactly the same in-game. They're even the same weight.

It'd be tough to justify having both in the game, the flavor would be appreciated (mk18s I believe are a newer, rarer bird) but it'd be redundant from a gameplay perspective. Given the choice between the two I'd absolutely go for the Mk18, personally

[ChocolateDipIceCreamConeWorld]

:(

[TARS]

They could make the M4A1 a 3rd burst M4 Carbine?

Leave the M4A1 in this game, soon enough there will be custom weapon models and guess which weapon people will want to swap in an M416, ACR, Tar 21 for... The M4A1.

[TARS]

If they remove the M4 they better remove the M1A1, that's the real useless weapon in this game.

[Parker]

They wont remove the m1a1. They took out the M4A1 because the MK18 serves the same role of a compact automatic rifle. That said I prefer the M4A1, and I can understand why others would prefer the MK18.

[[MM]PurplDrank]

Keep the mk18 please. I love that weapon.

[TARS]

Make the M4A1 the 3rd burst M4 Carbine if they have to!

Don't get rid of it... Bad idea!

[Deadpixel]

The Mk18 is an M4 variant and therefore we replaced it. The M4A1 didn't stand up to our quality standards and we had the Mk18 as an option, so we took it. It also creates a better visual distinction from the M16.

Who knows what the future may hold for weapon variants, not really my AO, but we have plans to expand our arsenal in the future. :)

[Dr.Wholian?]

From a balance/gameplay perspective, it'd make the most sense to have the M4 carbine (semi/burst version, not M4A1) replace the M16A4, so combined with the Mk18 replacing the role of the M4A1 - you've achieved the same roles as before, but with reduced the barrel lengths. In doing this, you collective reduce the fragmentation damage range, of Security's 5.56mm rifles, creating a more fair situation for Insurgents, who's AKM's otherwise would otherwise deal much less damage whilst kicking up almost twice the recoil.

If you plan your weapon inclusions right, then you can have gameplay balance and realism combined without conflicting eachother. If you include the wrong weapons, then suddenly many weapons don't fit the roles they were meant for if given realistic characteristics, and in the end you wind up with totally contrived weapon balance coupled with weapons that have no relation to their real life counterparts other than the skin.

With design and planning, you can have a marriage of gameplay balance and realism which is much more elegant than just arbitrarily choosing weapons based on superficial aesthetics and then forcing them into the roles you want them to fill.

[🦇Pachira🦇]

Originally posted by Gnalvl:

From a balance/gameplay perspective, it'd make the most sense to have the M4 carbine (semi/burst version, not M4A1) replace the M16A4, so combined with the Mk18 replacing the role of the M4A1 - you've achieved the same roles as before, but with reduced the barrel lengths. In doing this, you collective reduce the fragmentation damage range, of Security's 5.56mm rifles, creating a more fair situation for Insurgents, who's AKM's otherwise would otherwise deal much less damage whilst kicking up almost twice the recoil.

If you plan your weapon inclusions right, then you can have gameplay balance and realism combined without conflicting eachother. If you include the wrong weapons, then suddenly many weapons don't fit the roles they were meant for if given realistic characteristics, and in the end you wind up with totally contrived weapon balance coupled with weapons that have no relation to their real life counterparts other than the skin.

With design and planning, you can have a marriage of gameplay balance and realism which is much more elegant than just arbitrarily choosing weapons based on superficial aesthetics and then forcing them into the roles you want them to fill.

Man if they removed the M16A4 then I'm gonna be pissed. That's my favorite assault rifle. Not to mention it would break the Marines aesthetic even further. I don't want this game to be about being some spec ops wannabe with Mk18s and SCAR Hs and ACRs and all that fancy stuff. I just want to be a normal rifleman carrying an M16A4

Personally I think they should bring back the M4A1 and have both it and the Mk18 together. Removing the M4A1 is rather unrealistic. Or maybe they should bring it back as the M4, which would be even more realistic to have (since M4A1s are for special forces most of the time, though the Mk18 is too but whatever). But they shouldn't replace the M16A4 with the M4, it should be its own weapon.