Since there have been almost equal amount of complaints about each of these weapons being OP in some way or another.

Scar users complain about Typhoon's rate of fire. Typhoon users complain about the bow's range and cloak. Bow users complain about Scar's sniping capability. And then there's also the Marshall. The complaints are nothing more than disgruntled players unhappy about being killed.

I think it's fair to conclude that there actually is some degree of balance. At least everybody isn't taking issue with the same weapon.

The Typhoon I'm ok with. I hardly see it and when I do I seem to be able to avoid it well enough.

I personally enjoy the Bow. It's fun to use even though my aim with it is a bit off thanks to my low FPS, but I can see how some may be annoyed by it allowing you to remain cloaked and basically camp(which sadly a lot of people do)

My only problem with the Marshall is I believe it works to well for the ranges I've seen people use it. OHK from long range on a Shotgun is a bit over the top. Still. I find the Alpha Jackal far more annoying to deal with.

Incorrect. There's two forces at play here - one one side, people who generally feel any death they get in the game is illegitimate and seek to blame the gun, and on the other side, those with a genuine grievance. Don't lump them together.

Every gun is OP in one situation or another, and that's how it should be. If you have a sniper rifle and you're engaging a guy with a shotun at 5 metres, you deserve to die. At 100 metres, he deserves to die. The game is all about positioning and getting yourself into unequal fights.

The problem with the Typhoon is it goes over its remit. It basically obseletes the Feline by having the same kill times at the same range, and even better close up. This should not be the case. It's like a shotgun that can kill at 5 metres and at 100 metres. Exaggerating for effect, but you get the point.

The people with illegitimate complaints are those that brand it OP for killing quickly close range, despite that being its function. They just don't like dying full-stop. Those (like myself) that have a genuine complaint, dislike the fact it is a viable weapon at middle distance too, meaning the user is never really at much of a disadvantage. Everyone else has to pick their battles, while the Typhoon user can basically be almost completely reactionary and still come out on top.

The Bow is a different issue entirely - basically that it changes the nature of the game by making camping viable. That's also a legitimate complaint. When you buy Halo or CoD, or any FPS franchise, you do so over the other based on a certain set of expectations of what the game will be like based on what you enjoy. The Bow fundamentally alters the formula of fast-paced no-camping action for some that they enjoyed so much in Crysis 2, and they have a right to air that disappointment accordingly.

Scarab is balanced, FY7 without rapid fire is balanced, m60 without rapid fire is balanced, ogr is balanced, dgs is balanced, gauss is balanced, secondary weapons are balanced, mike is balanced but need a clean up, k volt isnt op but i didnt test him enugh to say if its up, grendel is balanced, takedown is balanced, feline is balanced, cant say about L tag as i dont find it good it tdm but will test later.. Rest of the weapons are not.

Scar is the only weapon i feel is fundamentally OP, its the best weapons at possibly every range (aside from the lowest possible or highest possible, where one is dominated with shotguns and other with bows and sniper rifles).

Typhoon is getting pushed over the top with rapid fire and even without it is borderline.

Bows make this game unfun to play, little counter play and just works against every thing you are suppose to do in this game. I do not plan on running with armor on all the time. Take away auto armor and there will never be a reason to use gauss or dsg.

Shotguns are mainly getting pushed to op side because of how easy is to close the gap and auto armor, why ? Normaly you would need to put your armor on when in duel, meaning you will lose your speed and be more visible but with auto armor there is no such need so you never lose your speed without disadvantage (and because shotguns doesnt need special modules you are free to choose auto armor without losing anything).

Poles was balanced around pre nerf meele, it shouldnt OHK with armor on now, its silly.

Most of imbalances of this game are because of auto armor and rapid fire. Rapid fire turns balanced guns into monsters ( FY7 or m60 both quite balanced without rapid fire, but put rapid fire on them and see what happens) or the fact that some weapons was balanced around auto armor (ex. bow). The best thing that could happen is to remove both of those modules, but we know it wont happen. Balancing weapons around rapid fire is stupid, nerfing rapid fire to 15% at 3lvl would be the best option that is left, still decent but not mandatory on half of the guns.

The OP is OP.

Incorrect. There's two forces at play here - one one side, people who generally feel any death they get in the game is illegitimate and seek to blame the gun, and on the other side, those with a genuine grievance. Don't lump them together.

Every gun is OP in one situation or another, and that's how it should be. If you have a sniper rifle and you're engaging a guy with a shotun at 5 metres, you deserve to die. At 100 metres, he deserves to die. The game is all about positioning and getting yourself into unequal fights.

The problem with the Typhoon is it goes over its remit. It basically obseletes the Feline by having the same kill times at the same range, and even better close up. This should not be the case. It's like a shotgun that can kill at 5 metres and at 100 metres. Exaggerating for effect, but you get the point.

The people with illegitimate complaints are those that brand it OP for killing quickly close range, despite that being its function. They just don't like dying full-stop. Those (like myself) that have a genuine complaint, dislike the fact it is a viable weapon at middle distance too, meaning the user is never really at much of a disadvantage. Everyone else has to pick their battles, while the Typhoon user can basically be almost completely reactionary and still come out on top.

The Bow is a different issue entirely - basically that it changes the nature of the game by making camping viable. That's also a legitimate complaint. When you buy Halo or CoD, or any FPS franchise, you do so over the other based on a certain set of expectations of what the game will be like based on what you enjoy. The Bow fundamentally alters the formula of fast-paced no-camping action for some that they enjoyed so much in Crysis 2, and they have a right to air that disappointment accordingly.

If a comparison is made with Halo and COD, then I feel the problem is with the expectation itself. Why compare an fps which has a cloaking feature with another which doesn't, and expect similarities in gameplay? If anything, Crytek deserves credit for introducing variation in the gameplay formula. And traditionally, people camp to get a high score. In this game, campers normally are the poorer performers. The brave and crazy ones dominate the scoreboard. So there's no reason to claim unfairness is there?

And your complaint about Typhoon...as i'm trying to point out, is highly subjective. You may think it's a legitimate complaint, but I never knew or thought the Typhoon felt OP until I read the forums. It may just be me, but most of my deaths are from Marshall users, not Typhoon. And quite a number of people here feel the same way as well. Point being, everyone will always think their complaint is legitimate. But judging by how the opinions here are split, we can deduce that the problem is more about the players than the weapons itself.

Well I played with typhoon and most people I killed switched to it for revenge. They still died, same weapon. Then I switched to MIKE and they still died. Then I was kicked. So yes, more than half of forum complaints are from bad people who can't adapt. Weapons have counters, learn them or use them if you think you're better. The only questionable weapon is scar, too god at all ranges imho. But I don't whine, I adapt.

Weapons are OP

Well I played with typhoon and most people I killed switched to it for revenge. They still died, same weapon. Then I switched to MIKE and they still died. Then I was kicked. So yes, more than half of forum complaints are from bad people who can't adapt. Weapons have counters, learn them or use them if you think you're better. The only questionable weapon is scar, too god at all ranges imho. But I don't whine, I adapt.

Idiotic statment, your way to adept is to use the most OP weapons. You might enjoy 5 weapons game, i do not.

BOW is way overpowered because it 1 shot kills if hit anywhere of your body, the way to make it balance is that shot to the leg whit the bow wont be 1 shot kill that's it, it makes me mad because a lot of time I just get killed by someone who spraying close quarters whit bow and hits me in leg and kills me whit 1 shot in leg.