Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Stop acting like an entitled brat.
T weapons are better and cheaper for a reason.
M4A1-S has been nerfed compared to M4A4.
And yes, it was nerfed not enough.
Also as others already pointed out don't compare CT weapons with T weapons.
T weapons do more damage and have more penetration while being cheaper because Ts have to push a site while CTs can just hold sites and camp.
And the answer is simple anyway: Weapon was too strong, got a fair nerf and now it looks way better. If someone has a different opinion he should work on himself and not blame the good balancing.
oldskl player talking...
If you want to compare m4a1 to something you need to compare it to m4a4.
You have what, 100 bullets in the gun?
Stop spraying, this weapon it's not for that.