Seriously. As I gazed upon the patch notes, I managed to get some more salt into my veins. First, you don't refund thermals while you changed entirely their use (I'm a pure infantry player btw, no bias), then you proceed to nerf the damage at range on guns which need it to be effective (Rhino and SABR 13 are prime examples), then you nerf the directive smgs which needed a straight buff. And you give us a carbine which is virtually outclassed by the NS-11C in almost every range, some useless knife which throws harmless light, and a scout rifle that is a worse version of the ES ASRs with no distinguishing feature, apart from the absence of damage drop and decent ammo reserve. So here is my question, do you read any of the feedback ? When people from all skill ranges say something is bad, it may actually be terrible. It may also be bad when stats show those weapons perform poorly, regardlessly of the skill level you're speaking about. I'm a salty vet, yet I may know what I'm talking about when I got 1k+ hours, or have auraxiumed a weapon, or even better, kept using said weapon afterwards. When you're completely ignoring feedback from both Redditside and forumside, may you care giving us an actual reason for it ? Extra salt : Want to have a better version of your SMG directive reward ? Use the standard one with a forward grip and SPA and stick to it. Why would you ever want a weapon with a FOUR METERS maximum damage range, with no benefit on velocity, also losing the ADS accuracy bonus it had in a previous version. Who's done this garbage in the first place, and did this same dude even play with SMGs before ? When you got to murder thousands of planetmen to get something, this something actually should be worth the ride. Oh, and feel free to add your own grain of salt aswell, pun intended.