Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 12, 2012 17:53:14 GMT -5
8bitasplodeHere's a better idea: instead of unnecessarily nerfing multiple guns the make the game fit into some preconceived notion of balance you have in your head, why not just make individual offenders effective within the spheres they were designed for? A manual-action shotgun has to have a significant OHKO range and that OHKO has to be reliable for it be competitive in Call of Duty, where you can die in mere tenths of seconds from far outside of your effective range. I already explained how your argument, which is based purely on map size, is flawed and erroneous. For example, there were plenty of small, high-traffic areas in MW2's maps. Did shotguns dominate on Rust? Nope. Can you use a shotgun effectively on Interchange? Yes. Optimal engagement ranges didn't magically change in MW3; the main difference is that a shotgun user will be able to traverse the map faster. You can't seriously tell me the MW2 SPAS would somehow become suddenly overpowered on the likes of Hardhat when it wasn't overpowered on Favela or Skidrow or any other map that lent itself to close quarters combat. Tell me: what is the magical difference between Fallen and Underpass that would make the MW2 SPAS overpowered? Remember, we're talking about the actual MW3 here, not MW3 as you wish it were without overpowered machine pistol secondaries or juggernaut ARs that are beastly at almost any range. If you're going to make such a sweeping statement, you're going to have to back it up. As for Black Ops, I was obviously referring to hip fire accuracy. Yes, I'm well aware that you can achieve a hip fire spread of 4 by aiming down the sights of the Stakeout; that doesn't somehow make the hip fire unimportant. It just means you have another option. Oh, and the BO SPAS and Olympia can't achieve tighter spread than SA hip fire through ADS, by the way, so I don't see what point you were trying to make by bringing that up, lol. If the MW3 SPAS were to do 35 damage per hit, what would be the point of Damage, hm? You're throwing numbers out without thinking things through. Range, which is unlocked first, would be superior to Damage in virtually every way because even with Damage it would still take 3/8 pellets to kill, and no, you can't count on your opponents to not be at full health for the majority of engagements. Range would be extending your maximum reach and your reliable OHKO distance while Damage would be worthless. Again, let me put this differently since you didn't catch on the first time: you are arguing the map size somehow would make the MW2 SPAS overpowered, but the Striker is in this game, virtually unchanged from its MW2 self, and it's not overpowered; it's pretty much exactly as good as it should be. There's no logical reason why the MW2 SPAS, which was balanced with the MW2 Striker, wouldn't fit right in alongside the MW3 Striker. If you disagree, please explain why the MW2 SPAS would suddenly become significantly better just by switching games instead of just repeating your previous statement as if that made it any less assumptive. My way (3/8 pellets to kill by default, 2/8 with Damage) is not only better for the game as a whole by adding more variety among effective options, but it wouldn't be somehow overpowered due to the maps or among the other shotguns.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 12, 2012 18:21:39 GMT -5
Hey guys this is SHoTTy. Thanks for all the testing you have done as well. I wanted to shed some light on some other valuable possibly not valuable testing that Ive done. Possibly not valuable first: Before the patch damage dealt to vehicles by shotguns (white pickup truck on bakarra map) as follows: Model 1887 5 shots to destroy/ After patch still 5 Spas 12 6 shots to destroy/ After patch 5 KSG 12 6 shots to destroy/ after patch still 6 USAS 12 6 shots to destroy/ after patch still 6 Striker 6 shots to destroy/ after patch still 6 Dont recall the AA - 12 These tests were not affected by the damage proficiency. These tests are probably also not valuable, however I did notice the spas 12 got a higher vehicle damage post patch then before. What may be valuable: In private match tested to see how many shots It takes to kill the Jauggernaut with all different health levels. Heres what I found... KSG 12 and USAS 12 both kill in the least amount of shots to body and a few shots less when shooting the head. KSG 12 will kill in less when Damage prof is added. The USAS 12 doesnt change much. The model 1887 and the spas 12 take exactly the same regardless of Damage proficiency but here is the Key!!!!! If you shoot the jauggernaut in the head with both the model 1887 and the spas 12 the model 1887 will kill in fewer shots. Also.. The striker takes more than all to kill except the AA 12 which takes a rediculous amount of hits to kill the jauggernaut. What does this mean? well perhaps not much but based on this test alone it would suggest that The KSG 12 and the USAS 12 are the strongest shotguns in the game and are both equal in terms of damage dealt to the jauggernaut unless Damage proficiency is equipt and then the ksg 12 wins out. Both are stronger than the model or spas. The model and spas are also stronger than the striker . And the AA 12 is by far the weakest. This may be valuable in some ways but based on testing that we have done The ksg 12 should be the strongest as it is but the usas 12 should not be killing in less hits than the spas 12 or model and it does on the jauggernaunt. The model is slightly stronger than the spas 12 win shooting the head. and you can figure the rest out. Hope this answers some questions but I have a hunch that it will just create even more. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the Model did 40 damage? [Or 36-49, W/E]
|
|
|
Post by shottytown on Feb 12, 2012 18:26:42 GMT -5
I came to that conclusion after testing it in the video I put on youtube based on the number of pellets it takes to kill. It was a simple test and easy to visually see. however after doing so many of those tests its easy to see the flaws. Not because of the tests design but because of infinity wards sloppy hit detection. It is just not an accurate test 100% of the time. There is no way the model 1887 deals more than low 30's damage. IT just gets too many hit markers in regular game play. I think bedlems test is possibly more accuarate but it has its flaws as well. My goal is too get to the bottom of these issues but through futher testing I seem to be generating more questions for myself than answers.
|
|
mmacola
True Bro
the brazilian guy
Posts: 1,995
|
Post by mmacola on Feb 12, 2012 20:15:25 GMT -5
The Spas is correct. From 25 to 30 damage, it is expected to destroy the vehicles in less shots.
KSG 12 killing in less shots than the USAS when w/ Damage is correct, since it's 28 damage against the USAS's 25.
Striker test against the Jugg is also correct, since that up close, it's the second least damage shotgun (masterkey not included), winning only against the AA-12 (that doo-doo is doo-doo).
Both USAS and KSG are very strong up close, thanks to it's high damage and 9 pellets.
The SPAS and the Model are better at longer ranges, but arguably. You're pretty much trading consistency for higher damage per pellet.
AA-12 sucks, but it's kinda cool. Fun to use with overkill if you're tired from using akimbo mps.
|
|
|
Post by shottytown on Feb 12, 2012 20:42:58 GMT -5
yeah but you seem to have missed some discrepencies. 1. for vehicle damage the ksg 12 should kill in the fewest or at least 5 like the spas and model but it doesnt it destroys in 6 shots. 1. The usas 12 kills jauggernaut in less hits than model or spas? If the usas 12 only deals 25 damage per pellet it would be weaker than the spas 12 and model at close range but apparently when it comes to killing a jauggernaut its not.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 12, 2012 20:47:13 GMT -5
First off, shotguns WERE dominating among the secondaries in MW2, and were only not being used more than the primary weapons because of how OP the ARs were thanks to the complete lack of sway on ARs.
Second, the actual MW3 needs a nerf to the machine pistols just like how the actual Black Ops has always needed a nerf to the Assault Rifles and how the actual MW3 needs a buff to the LMGs that makes all the LMGs useful.
In black ops, the stakeout has an ADS spread of 3, which meant that even with steady aim, you were only getting tighter spread than ADS when standing still (lol standing still with a shotgun).
As for the olympia and spas-12, the aiming spread meant that if you chose to ADS more, you were getting about the same spread as SA when moving (ADS was 5.5, moving with SA was 5) this was especially useful on the olympia and especially useful when combined with a sprint-jump.
Fine. Then why not have it be 36-14 damage (it would be a 2PK at close range w/damage, but only up to around 500 ft, range and damage would both be useful) and have the 1887 be 40-20 (would be like the spas-12 but with better range and damage, no attachments, less ammo, and bigger spread)?
You don't think people still tend to lean towards the striker among the top tier guns due to the high minimum damage?
I don't have that big of an issue with the close range damage other than 40 on both the spas-12 and 1887 other than 40 damage on the spas-12 possibly making the 1887 useless (36 would be better to give the 1887 a more definitive damage advantage), It's having easy 1HK potential at 875 feet that I have a problem with. That's just ridiculous considering that all the SMGs do 20 damage or less per bullet at 850 feet.
And I just want to emphasize this one last time because you are having trouble seeing where we mostly already agree:
I ALSO WANT A CLOSE RANGE BUFF TO THE SPAS-12 AND 1887.
I just don't want anything other than the 1887 doing 40-20 damage and only the 1887 because of the bigger hipfire spread and lack of attachments.
BTW, that is about the headshot multiplier that made the 1887 kill a a juggernaut faster. It would be interesting to see if the 1887 has a headshot multiplier and just how significant it is.
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 12, 2012 22:54:15 GMT -5
Let me get this straight: you first argued that the SPAS-12 would be overpowered with its MW2 stats due to the size of the maps. I countered this point by 1) explaining that engagement ranges haven't changed and 2) pointing out that the Striker (and now the new-and-improved USAS) isn't overpowered in MW3... and your counter-argument is that shotguns were "dominating among secondaries in MW2" and the only reason they weren't used more is because ARs were OP due to lack of sway...?
I shouldn't have to tell you that's total conjecture on your part. Even if you introduced MW3's idle sway to MW2's ARs, they'd still dominate the playing field, and MW3's ARs are not at all far behind. Remember: shotguns are the most limited weapons in Call of Duty, period. ARs, SMGs, LMGs, and even sniper rifles are all still highly lethal outside of their intended ranges, whereas shotguns literally cannot be used outside of their intended range. That's why they were secondaries in MW2. Shotguns that are not able to dominate at close range are novelties.
Speaking of MW2... First, all the non-launcher secondaries were competent enough to serve as a primary weapon in MW2, so that part of your argument doesn't apply. Machine pistols such as the G18 and Raffica were highly competitive with shotguns in close quarters, and were capable of engaging the enemy at longer ranges too. Even a handgun could serve a similar function to a shotgun thanks to Commando and the Tac Knife, and that's the real reason shotguns weren't "used more" in MW2: there were other options that were just as good, not because ARs didn't have idle sway, lol.
There was a lot more content in my last post that you didn't address, such as what the magical difference is between MW2 and MW3 maps are that would make the MW2 SPAS specifically but not the MW3 Striker overpowered.
I'm not making an attempt to balance the SPAS-12, Model 1887, and KSG in MW3 because it's a waste of time, IMO. To be blunt, it was a silly design choice on IW's part to include three manual-action shotguns because no matter how you slice the cake they're all going to function in the same manner. You can make one longer ranged and have it do less damage, one cycle the action slightly faster for a few more RPMs, and one do more damage than the others but whichever one ends up being offering the most reliable OHKO will end up eclisping the other ones. I would be happy to have just one manual-action shotgun that wasn't underpowered, lol.
You mentioned that the MW3 Striker or USAS after the patch is considered a top-tier weapon. Why shouldn't we have an actually good SPAS or Model or KSG or whatever that's on the same level as the Striker and USAS? The pump-action shotgun is a first-person shooter icon and it's a gosh darn golly gee whiz shame that 1) it's an unenjoyable grind to unlock the proficiencies that make any of them halfway decent whereas the Striker and USAS can be effective the moment they become available, and 2) even at their most powerful, the manual-actions still are totally inferior to the Striker and USAS.
Again, for a 60 RPM manual-action shotgun to be better than its faster-firing counterparts, it needs to have a longer effective range and be a reliable OHKO to justify its existence. The MW2 SPAS is exactly as powerful as a pump-action shotgun should be. The reward is proportional to the risk.
Now...
I don't know why you keep bringing up Black Ops because it's totally irrelevant to this conversation, but whether it's a spread of 3 or a spread of 4 with the Stakeout, it doesn't make a difference beyond giving Stakeout or single-wield HS10 users the option of aiming down their sights to tighten the spread. If that's what you're saying, that's true. It's also true that you can ADS to achieve spread close to SA-enhanced hip fire with the SPAS and the Olympia. That's an entirely different discussion that I'm not interested in, but I will say that that's how it should be for every shotgun because otherwise Steady Aim hip fire is always preferable to aiming down sights (no need to re-acquire the target or deal with functional ADS delay).
Glad you agree about 2/8 pellets with Damage on the SPAS because that should be the standard for all pump actions. The devs should have started with that then played with the ranges and rates of fire to try to balance the rest of the manual-actions from there if they wanted to insist on having three of them in the game.
Just to reiterate this point one last time, you say we want the same thing as me regarding the SPAS, but you're going to have to concede that a manual-action will always be inferior to a semi-automatic unless the manual-action has significant range advantage.
With MW3 in mind, that leaves us with 1) lowering the effective range of the Striker and USAS, or 2) increasing the range of the manual-actions. The correct choice is the latter, because firstly, the Striker and USAS have demonstrated themselves to be highly competent but not overpowering as they are, and secondly, it's not like the MW2 SPAS was able to achieve OHKOs at the extremities of its range unless the cross hairs were perfectly centered, which takes a LOT of time and practice. Why shouldn't a player be rewarded for their time and effort?
As for SMGs, an MP7 can hip fire down most ARs at close range and take out snipers from across the map; the PP90M1 kills almost instantly all the way up to middle range, and the P90 is a mini LMG. There's ZERO reason for an SMG to rival a shotgun in close range, period, when the SMG user could take a few steps back and not even be touched by a shotgun's pellets.
MW2 rewarded me for putting time and effort into mastering the SPAS, whereas nowadays, MW3 has actually punished me for putting time and effort into the SPAS, lol. It's annoying I have to put myself at a disadvantage to use a gun that I used to like. IW got the SPAS right in MW2, and it sucks that they turned around and messed it up. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 13, 2012 0:13:50 GMT -5
Let me get this straight: you first argued that the SPAS-12 would be overpowered with its MW2 stats due to the size of the maps. I countered this point by 1) explaining that engagement ranges haven't changed and 2) pointing out that the Striker (and now the new-and-improved USAS) isn't overpowered in MW3... and your counter-argument is that shotguns were "dominating among secondaries in MW2" and the only reason they weren't used more is because ARs were OP due to lack of sway...? If you want an example, lets look at a map like underpass, most of the stage is very open. pretty much all three paths to get to the other side of the map (and I mean by seperating the map by the underpass) requires going through a very large open area that you can easily get sniped on. Meanwhile, even on a map like fallen, you lots of cover almost everywhere so that you can limit your engagements to close range. You I both know that pretty much everyone's first reaction to the MW3 maps was "Wow there is a ridiculous amount of cover". It's part of why every first started saying that MW3 would be a very SMG oriented game and why of the two DLC maps that are supposed to much different compared to other maps include a very vertical map with lots of paths and a big flat long range map with lots of long sightlines. You never saw people using pistols in MW2. It was always either shotguns or machine pistols, mainly akimbo G18s. And of course people were complaining that akimbo G18s were OP. BTW, keep in mind that in MW2, the spas-12 actually has better hitmarker range than prepatch akimbo 1887s. 1887s were of course cheap because you got to fire 16 pellets at once with quick reload, but range added to a MW2 spas-12 would lead to OHKs at AR range. That just wouldn't be fair. And that's BEFORE you take into account what an MW2 spas-12 w/specialist bonus would do. I should have elaborated. The striker fires only 6 pellets per shot but is still powerful enough to keep up with cheap weapons like the ACR and type 95. The reason for this is because it does 15 damage per shot, meaning that you never need to hit an opponent with more than 7 pellets for the kill, 5 if you are using damage. Meaning that with damage you have a spammable shotgun that can potentially OHK at any range and with range you have a longer range spammable shotgun that can potentially 2HK at any range. So yeah, I do think it needs a slight nerf for long range damage, it SHOULD be changed to ten so that it is a powerful close range weapon but a weaker medium range weapon. Simmilarly, if they gave the AA12 the same stats that it had in MW2, it would be OP, because it would do 15 damage per pellet minimum, which is just way too much. [/quote]I'm not making an attempt to balance the SPAS-12, Model 1887, and KSG in MW3 because it's a waste of time, IMO. To be blunt, it was a silly design choice on IW's part to include three manual-action shotguns because no matter how you slice the cake they're all going to function in the same manner. You can make one longer ranged and have it do less damage, one cycle the action slightly faster for a few more RPMs, and one do more damage than the others but whichever one ends up being offering the most reliable OHKO will end up eclisping the other ones. I would be happy to have just one manual-action shotgun that wasn't underpowered, lol.[/quote] KSG is fine as is because it makes for being a 4 pellet kill by firing more pellets and never needing more than 7 pellets to kill at any range. It becomes even better with steady aim and/or damage because it becomes even easier to get a OHK with (never need more than 3-5 pellets hitting for the kill). Not to mention that unlike the spas-12 and 1887, it doesn't need to reload as often. The USAS is different. With damage it becomes good at OHKs only within the range that it does 35 damage per pellet. With range it is worse at OHKs than the KSG, but can pull off a lot of 2HKs and 3HKs. It's an ironic shotgun that lets you sacrifice close range potential for great medium range potential. It's one of my favorite shotguns for that very reason. The KSG is very reliable at OHK's within its range, especially with damage. Let me phrase it as a question. If they took the stakeout stats from Black Ops and switched it with the spas-12 stats from MW3 (making the spas-12 do 40-10 damage instead of 30-14) and then put a feature in MW3 where ADS reduces the spread by 20% (5 hip w/out SA, 4 ADS), would the spas-12 do great in MW3? I bet it would, because it would be reliable ENOUGH in close range without damage, while still giving you options. So with that in mind, what would be wrong with the spas-12 doing 36-10 damage? I agree with 2/8 pellets with damage with minimal 2PK range and with the gun not doing a ridiculous 20 damage at range, because with damage the only shotgun that should be doing 28 damage at minimum is the 1887 because of its lack of attachments, smaller ammo, and bigger hipfire. The KSG has much better OHK potential than the USAS and holds twice as much ammo, especially when you add damage to both. 3-5 pellets to kill is much better than 3-15 pellets to kill for OHK potential, especially when that 3PK range is better on the KSG. And the solution to balancing the shotguns is to: - change the striker to 10 damage per pellet at minimum - change the spas-12 to 36-10 damage - change the 1887 to 40-20 damage - change the AA-12 to 18-8 damage and increase its starting ammo
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 13, 2012 1:05:48 GMT -5
I'm busy playing MW2 right now, but I'll respond later. Till then, I'll say this:
KSG having better OHKO potential doesn't matter when USAS can easily kill in 1-2 shots over almost the same range, and it's just as easy to limit engagements to close range on Underpass as Fallen.
|
|
|
Post by bedlam36 on Feb 13, 2012 4:47:46 GMT -5
I did some headshot testing tonight. Results were: No effect at all on the Spas or Model. Anyone with a official forum account, go to this thread www.callofduty.com/thread/100584619?start=4065&tstart=0 and spam GHANDI (an IW Developer) to post the buffed shotgun stats. He has said on multiple occasions that he will, but always ends up ignoring the issue when posting.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 13, 2012 10:02:07 GMT -5
" And the solution to balancing the shotguns is to: - change the striker to 10 damage per pellet at minimum - change the spas-12 to 36-10 damage - change the 1887 to 40-20 damage - change the AA-12 to 18-8 damage and increase its starting ammo "
Sounds like a nerf to the SPAS.. 2:7/3:10 vs 3:5/4:8
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 13, 2012 15:42:13 GMT -5
" And the solution to balancing the shotguns is to: - change the striker to 10 damage per pellet at minimum - change the spas-12 to 36-10 damage - change the 1887 to 40-20 damage - change the AA-12 to 18-8 damage and increase its starting ammo " Sounds like a nerf to the SPAS.. 2:7/3:10 vs 3:5/4:8 A close range buff to the spas-12 is much more significant than a long range nerf, especially considering that the problem with the current spas-12 in MW3 is the lack of close range firepower. I'm busy playing MW2 right now, but I'll respond later. Till then, I'll say this: KSG having better OHKO potential doesn't matter when USAS can easily kill in 1-2 shots over almost the same range, and it's just as easy to limit engagements to close range on Underpass as Fallen. Based on thoughts of people who insist on using damage on the USAS, I'd say that 1HK potential is very important so long as the gun doesn't fire as fast as the AA12 or striker.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 13, 2012 20:29:20 GMT -5
Personally I'd be fine with the current SPAS if it had high penetration. Thats my main problem .If someone is even partially behind cover, you might as well just stand there like an idiot. You cannot kill them.
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 13, 2012 21:21:02 GMT -5
*sigh* Man, I don't even know where to begin with your last post. You stated, specifically, that MW2's shotguns weren't used more than primaries because ARs didn't have idle sway like they do in MW3. You can't make an assertion like that then just gloss it over. I compared Underpass and Fallen because a shotgun user will have to approach both maps in a fairly similar manner, avoiding the larger, open areas and sticking to flank routes along the sides of the map, which is highly doable. There are fairly high-traffic structures that lend themselves especially well to shotguns on both maps... and seriously, not only do matches tend to center more heavily around the buildings on either side of Underpass where people like to snipe, but there are more possible flank routes on Underpass than there are on Fallen. The problem with this discussion is that, at baseline, you simply don't believe in having powerful shotguns. If you seriously think the post-patch MW3 Striker is still too strong, trust me: we're never going to agree. I explained why I believe shotguns should dominate at CQB in my last post. It's like you don't understand how shotguns work: If the Striker did a minimum damage of 10, for example, it would take at least two shots to kill an opponent provided your cross hairs are squarely placed over center mass, and if you know anything about Call of Duty, you know that the Striker isn't a one hit kill even at max damage! In game, a minimum damage of 10 for a six shot shotgun means 3-4 shots to kill at max range most of the time, which is stupid when the likes of ARs and SMGs can easily can you in between shots... not to mention you make it highly disadvantageous to run anything but Steady Aim. Likewise, your assertion that the AA12 would be overpowered is equally baseless. Prior to the ExMags patch, it was spitting out 12 pellets per shot. Along with Damage or Range and Steady Aim it was actually better than it was in MW2, and it wasn't at all overpowering. It was almost unbeatable in its short range, which is actually how it should be. You are making things up if you think a minimum damage of 15 would make the AA12 overpowered when the pellets disappear completely with one step backwards. xfd Finally, there isn't a single person reading this that actually thinks the KSG is better or equal to the USAS or Striker. The answer is simple: the latter shotguns put you at less risk and are better at killing enemies before they kill you, while the KSG can easily get you killed if you miss, don't get a one shot kill, or find yourself lagging. I guarantee you any score I get with a manual-action shotgun, I could outdo with the USAS or Striker. If we look back to MW2, there are plenty of people who would swear by the SPAS-12 because its range and deadliness gave it distinct advantages versus the other shotguns. It'd still get you killed if you missed or whiffed a shot, but if you didn't, it could be used to great effect, an effect that can't be achieved that with the KSG. If you make a manual-action take an average of three to four shots to kill at range, that range is functionally useless. Your point about Black Ops still isn't relevant. I don't care what you fix the exact damage of the SPAS or any other manual-action at as long as it is a 2/8 pellet kill in max damage range with Damage, a 3/8 pellet kill in max damage range otherwise, does enough damage to easily kill in two centered shots at its max range with SA, and has longer range than faster-firing shotguns. We can say we're talking about the Model 1887 if the lack of attachments makes you feel better or whatever, but my point is the same: without being able to easily one shot opponents and having some sort of range advantage, there's no point in using a manual-action shotgun other than for fun or style. People insist on using Damage on the USAS because it reduces the chance of getting killed between shots... which is the whole reason manual-actions are underpowered. Suffice it to say, you and I have different ideas of what a shotgun should be capable of, especially if you think MW2's shotguns were overpowered, because those shotguns were the most balanced ones in any Call of Duty ever. Old MW3 SPAS > new MW3 SPAS
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 14, 2012 0:55:40 GMT -5
The problem with this discussion is that, at baseline, you simply don't believe in having powerful shotguns. If you seriously think the post-patch MW3 Striker is still too strong, trust me: we're never going to agree. I explained why I believe shotguns should dominate at CQB in my last post. It's like you don't understand how shotguns work: If the Striker did a minimum damage of 10, for example, it would take at least two shots to kill an opponent provided your cross hairs are squarely placed over center mass, I'm just going to skip to part where you misunderstood what I said and explain what I meant by a minimum damage of 10. Currently the way the striker works: - 25 damage close range - begins to drop down at 300 units - ends at 600 units at 15 damage what I wanted at a change to striker to make it great but not to powerful at distance shots was: - 25 damage close range - begins to drop down at 300 units - ends a 600 units at 10 damage Wait, so your assertion that it isn't overpowered is to compare the almost completely (no specialist bonus) upgraded AA12 in MW3 to the AA12 with no upgrades? Lets be fair and compare them both as though both were in MW3: current AA12 (pre and post patch) has a range of 450 units. At 450 it does 12 pellets that do 5 damage each. With Damage, that damage changes to 21-7 damage per pellet at 7 pellets each. With range, that is 563 units of range in which 12 pellets did 15-5 damage. For completeness, we'll do the comparison at both pellet counts. The MW2 AA12 had a range of 500 units and the damage only changed from 20 to 15 for 8 pellets. If they took that AA12 and put it in this game it would be 20-15 with 625 units of range with range and 28-21 damage with 500 units of range with damage. If we just compared the MW3 AA12 w/12 pellets and MW2 AA12 w/8 pellets, you have 180-60 damage vs 160-120 damage with the MW2 AA12 having better hitmarker range by 50 units. If you add range, the MW3 AA12 has better hitmarker range by 63 units. If we compared the MW3 AA12 w/12 pellets + damage and the MW2 AA12 w/8 pellets, you have 252-84 damage vs 160-120 damage with the MW2 AA12 having better hitmarker range. In most ways you COULD argue that MW3 AA12 with upgrades is better than the MW2 AA12. BUT, my statement was about how ridiculous it would have been to take the MW2 AA12 and put into MW3. The MW2 AA12 w/damage would do 224-168 damage with a range of 500. That's 28-21 damage per pellet, meaning that at merely the hitmarker range of the AA12, the gun would be able to kill in one shot, let alone the 2-4 shots you would likely get the chance to unload onto your opponent. And that would be with slightly better range than what the MW3 AA12 has. Even without damage it would be capable of killing in 1 shot at 500 units. It's not that hard to get within 12.5 meters of your opponent in MW3. If it were than people wouldn't be doing so well with the striker w/out range. Considering how often I still see people insisting that the USAS is bad, I'd say it's not so clear. To compare: KSG12 holds 12 ammo and fires 9 pellets at 28-15 damage each at a range of 600 units. It is capable of getting a OHK at any range in which at least 7/9 of the pellets hit (4/9 if within the AA12's hitmarker range. Reload is per shell. USAS holds 6 ammo and fires 9 pellets at 25-5 damage at a range of 700 units. It loses it's ability to kill in 4 pellets after 400 meters and after 560 units takes more than 7 pellets to kill in 1 hit. Reload is by the magazine at once. Once you get damage, the KSG never needs more than 5 pellets to hit for a kill at any hitmarker range. The USAS has better range, but doesn't get the same OHK range as the KSG in terms of pellet requirement (because obviously 9 pellets to kill means you are almost always going to need to shoot them at least a second time). The USAS makes for it by firing about twice as fast, but can only hold half as many shells and takes longer to reload 1 magazine than it takes to reload 5 or less ksg shells at once, and the USAS gets the useful sprint bonus. Really, the only thing that would help is to make the KSG be more definitively better at close range damage than the USAS. So instead of 28-15 maybe 33-17 with the same dropoff and/or giving the KSG the sprint bonus the USAS has. but 3/9 pellets to kill w/damage at close range is fine and needs no buff in that aspect nor does the KSG need to have better hitmarker range than the USAS. But it's not big of a disadvantage for the KSG, especically if you have steady aim pro in both guns. WHAT? the KSG can kill n 1 shot at ANY range you can get a hitmarker in. 7*15=105 meaning that whenever at least 7 pellets hit it will kill, 5 if you have damage equiped. 2HK at any range is technically already possible with the current spas-12 and model 1887. all that those two guns need is more consistent close range capabilities. Also the spas-12 and 1887 technically already have better range than the USAS, Striker, and AA12. Personally I'd be fine with the current SPAS if it had high penetration. Thats my main problem .If someone is even partially behind cover, you might as well just stand there like an idiot. You cannot kill them. Considering how often I get hitmarkers even when there is nothing covering the enemy, I'd put more importance on the damage than the penetration.
|
|
|
Post by bedlam36 on Feb 14, 2012 2:21:24 GMT -5
Since this thread has kind of devolved into what shotguns should and shouldn't be, I'll put my input here:
Shotguns need a much more dynamic damage/range drop off system that standard guns. What's everyone's biggest rage moment when using shotguns? The point blank hitmarker. I propose having all manual action shotguns do 100 damage per pellet out to a very short range (or maybe 75, then with Damage prof it becomes 100). Getting hitmarkers at point blank range is more a product of lag and hit detection than aim. Put this range out to say 100 units. Put the 2 pellet kill out to a certain distance, etc. Have it be more dynamic than "Max damage is this, min is this, straight line damage drop off slope."
Concerning the AA-12, I'm fine with it how it is right now. Sorry, but I don't want the fully auto, or the spammy semi auto shotguns being the best choices for a skilled user. Reward the shotgunners who can handle the pumps like a man.
BTW, still waiting for that IW dev to man up and post the stats to confirm what we all know: The buff did nothing to buff shotguns.
And now I see he just posted that the "designer who balanced the shotguns is sick and taking time off from work." I'm feeling that's horse shit and they know they fucked up the shotguns and don't want to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 14, 2012 3:04:35 GMT -5
wow, I just read the Ghandi post you were referring to. It sounds like he is implying one of the following:
1) That the people who currently do the weapon balance don't coordinate with each other.
2) That there is only one guy who currently does weapon balance.
If Steam can be generally on top of weapon balance for their FREE game then IW needs to have an actual TEAM for weapon rebalancing.
BTW, If it's possible to make the range on guns have multiple slopes then your idea for reducing ridiculous close range hitmarkers would be perfect.
|
|
|
Post by unforgivenxile on Feb 14, 2012 4:17:33 GMT -5
Since this thread has kind of devolved into what shotguns should and shouldn't be, I'll put my input here: Shotguns need a much more dynamic damage/range drop off system that standard guns. What's everyone's biggest rage moment when using shotguns? The point blank hitmarker. I propose having all manual action shotguns do 100 damage per pellet out to a very short range (or maybe 75, then with Damage prof it becomes 100). Getting hitmarkers at point blank range is more a product of lag and hit detection than aim. Put this range out to say 100 units. Put the 2 pellet kill out to a certain distance, etc. Have it be more dynamic than "Max damage is this, min is this, straight line damage drop off slope." I 100% agree with you. With this damage system the shotguns (atleast the manual actions) should never be outgunned at the ranges they are supossed to be a definitive kill. Can someone please spam this whole forum at IW so they can see all the logical and actually smart implementations to weapon balance that you guys are contributing
|
|
Robospy
True Bro
Look at that lovely cock
Posts: 723
|
Post by Robospy on Feb 14, 2012 4:42:11 GMT -5
wow, I just read the Ghandi post you were referring to. It sounds like he is implying one of the following: 1) That the people who currently do the weapon balance don't coordinate with each other. 2) That there is only one guy who currently does weapon balance. If Steam can be generally on top of weapon balance for their FREE game then IW needs to have an actual TEAM for weapon rebalancing. BTW, If it's possible to make the range on guns have multiple slopes then your idea for reducing ridiculous close range hitmarkers would be perfect. A couple of guns in MW2 had multi-damage drop (though the way it was utilised was insignificant to the guns themselves), so it is possible, and a good idea too
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 14, 2012 10:23:34 GMT -5
Concerning the AA-12, I'm fine with it how it is right now. Sorry, but I don't want the fully auto, or the spammy semi auto shotguns being the best choices for a skilled user. Reward the shotgunners who can handle the pumps like a man. At the very least they need to fix the starting ammo so that scavenger isn't a necessity in S&D. Since this thread has kind of devolved into what shotguns should and shouldn't be, I'll put my input here: Shotguns need a much more dynamic damage/range drop off system that standard guns. What's everyone's biggest rage moment when using shotguns? The point blank hitmarker. I propose having all manual action shotguns do 100 damage per pellet out to a very short range (or maybe 75, then with Damage prof it becomes 100). Getting hitmarkers at point blank range is more a product of lag and hit detection than aim. Put this range out to say 100 units. Put the 2 pellet kill out to a certain distance, etc. Have it be more dynamic than "Max damage is this, min is this, straight line damage drop off slope." I 100% agree with you. With this damage system the shotguns (atleast the manual actions) should never be outgunned at the ranges they are supossed to be a definitive kill. Can someone please spam this whole forum at IW so they can see all the logical and actually smart implementations to weapon balance that you guys are contributing I agree that the IW forums need to be spammed, but I feel like the simpler the idea, the more likely it is to be implemented. For example, the USAS buff was really simple: make the extended mags pellet count standard instead of a glitch for extended mags. Meanwhile their ATTEMPT at buffing the spas-12 was to change the max damage to 30 and the min damage to 14. Both are simple things that don't require completely redoing mechanics of the game. wow, I just read the Ghandi post you were referring to. It sounds like he is implying one of the following: 1) That the people who currently do the weapon balance don't coordinate with each other. 2) That there is only one guy who currently does weapon balance. If Steam can be generally on top of weapon balance for their FREE game then IW needs to have an actual TEAM for weapon rebalancing. BTW, If it's possible to make the range on guns have multiple slopes then your idea for reducing ridiculous close range hitmarkers would be perfect. A couple of guns in MW2 had multi-damage drop (though the way it was utilised was insignificant to the guns themselves), so it is possible, and a good idea too I just looked at Den's MW2 page and it seems that either he didn't want to implement that old image chart of the weapons, or there isn't multiple slopes on the weapons (besides the slope not being the same with a silencer).
|
|
Robospy
True Bro
Look at that lovely cock
Posts: 723
|
Post by Robospy on Feb 14, 2012 14:39:16 GMT -5
I could have sworn I saw on his chart at some point that the FAL had multiple damage drop, I must have been wrong though
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 14, 2012 15:51:37 GMT -5
SnakeX has a chart that shows it does. Only slightly, and probably just inaccurate testing tho.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 14, 2012 16:39:05 GMT -5
I could have sworn I saw on his chart at some point that the FAL had multiple damage drop, I must have been wrong though Well, the FAL drops to 40 instead of 35 when using Holo Sight. Like I said, I remember that before den decided on the .swf versions he had an image with all the MW2 that showed multiple slopes on the guns, but I think it was just a flawed version that based around finding specific points where the damage was at certain values.
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 14, 2012 18:06:33 GMT -5
8bitasplodeLol, I knew exactly what you meant by "minimum damage of 10." Please re-read my post; there's no justification for making the Striker weaker at long range. It's totally fine as is. Your comparison between the MW2 AA12 vs. the current MW3 one was a waste of time because my point was, quite simply, that prior to the patch, the MW3 AA12 with its 12 pellets per shot, was not overpowered, and that incarnation of the AA12 was actually superior to its MW2 self... and it was. not. some unbalanced force of utter domination as you seem to be suggesting. There's no point in speculating how the MW2 AA12 would fair in MW3 when there was, at one point, an even better AA12 available (the glitched MW3 AA12) that wasn't game-breakingly good or even popular. (Specialist bonus is a non-issue. Myself and every other sane player would rather have shotguns that were usable and competitive from the moment they were unlocked instead of made weaker just to accommodate a bonus only awarded for a killstreak with one strike package in mind.) Btw, your analysis of the KSG vs. the USAS misses the point entirely. It's like me saying the pre-patch Model 1887 was balanced with the pre-patch SPAS-12 just because the Model had slightly longer possible OHKO range even though that's nowhere near as important as the pre-patch's SPAS's high damage when you take into account the actual function of the weapon. The USAS is far less likely to get you killed and far more reliable when it comes to killing than the KSG. I've never seen anyone anywhere argue that the KSG is superior to the USAS or the Striker. The USAS is better suited to engaging multiple targets and has a lower margin of error; the only thing the KSG is better at is taking out a single target in a certain range and only then if you have a nice shot... that's it. There's your entire comparison boiled down into a single sentence. Yes, it's possible for the KSG to kill in one shot at any range it can get a hitmarker in, just as it's possible for the Model 1887 to kill in one shot after its damage has dropped off to twenty but that doesn't happen most of the time IN A PRIVATE MATCH WITH PERFECTLY CENTERED CROSS HAIRS. The KSG might be capable of one shot kills at minimum damage, but those aren't even close to guaranteed under perfect conditions, and it's many, many times less likely in actual combat scenarios. Seriously, these shotguns have been demonstrated to fail repeatedly at getting one-shot kills at maximum damage, before the pellets have had a chance to diffuse. That failure rate grows exponentially with distance. You've mentioned repeatedly that the issue with shotguns is damage. Why are you continuing to disagree with me if that's actually the case? If shotguns worked the way you seem to envision them, with the KSG able to get one-shots consistently at its minimum damage range and always one-shotting when centered at close range, then this discussion wouldn't be taking place. However, that's not the case, and based on your statements, you seem to be well-aware shotguns don't do enough damage, but you continue to debate as if otherwise. For every "ridiculous close range hitmarker" you receive (to use your own words), you will receive a dozen more hitmarkers at longer distances even though those shots could technically have killed. Shocker? Not really when you take into account the mechanics at work. Solution: buff shotguns, not nerf them. It's been said time and time again, but it bears repeating: it makes no sense to nerf what used to be secondary weapons then make them primaries, especially while leaving secondaries (akimbo machine pistols) that usurp their role in the game. Also, I see you're still continuing to ignore huge swaths of my posts (as well as where I called you out on some of your more silly statements ). At first, your argument that MW2 shotguns would be overpowerd in MW3 (despite MW2-caliber shotguns being in/having been in the game without being overpowered) was based solely on the difference in map size. I countered that, and now what is your argument based on? A minimum damage of 15 is too high for the Striker to have... just because you say so, lol? Please respond in a comprehensive manner. I also agree with bedlam that the way the game treats shotguns should be re-evaluated. If I never got point-blank hitmarkers with a manual-action shotgun again I'd be very pleased indeed. I'd be fine with the AA12 being left in its current state if akimbo machine pistols weren't an option; as long as they are, the AA12's niche doesn't exist. The way I see it, a pump-action SHOULD be able to achieve better results than semi-autos if the player is highly skilled, i.e. exceptional aim, reflexes, and judgment. Otherwise what's the point of lowering my margin of error? P.S. Anyone seen hard numbers for the maximum consistent OHKO range of shotguns posted yet? If not, I'll research them. (Any volunteers for an assistant? ^_~)
|
|
|
Post by bedlam36 on Feb 14, 2012 18:14:41 GMT -5
At the very least they need to fix the starting ammo so that scavenger isn't a necessity in S&D. I agree that the IW forums need to be spammed, but I feel like the simpler the idea, the more likely it is to be implemented. I can definitely agree the AA-12 at least needs an ammo boost. A primary gun with only one mag in reserve is one of the more retarded things IW has done. My idea was more for the next installment in the series, as I have very little faith they would/could implement my damage dropoff idea into this game. As for stuff they could easily put into this game to make it better, make the Model, Spas, and KSG 2 pellet kills with Damage on. I like the general idea of the Model having the best min damage, due to other restricitons. The KSG would be the best gun up close due to a 2/9 pellet kill, instead of 2/8. And it should be like that since it has the slowest fire rate, and a shorter range than the Spas and Model. The sad thing is there are tons of better ideas on this forum than what is actually implemented into the game. I feel this board needs to be consulted (I'd do it for free) by Activision.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 14, 2012 21:38:56 GMT -5
8bitasplodeLol, I knew exactly what you meant by "minimum damage of 10." Please re-read my post; there's no justification for making the Striker weaker at long range. It's totally fine as is. A gun that can be spammed to fire as fast as an AA12 shouldn't be able to kill in 7 pellets w/out damage. But my entire point was to use the MW2 AA12 as an example of why simply porting shotguns from MW2 to MW3 wouldn't work. And no, the MW3 AA-12 firing 12 pellets was only better at close range, but still had less range than the MW2 AA12 AND did less damage at it's hitmarker range (60 damage at 450 feet) than the MW2 AA12 (120 damage at 500 feet). And with a gun like the AA-12, that range is extremely important. Fine, the KSG needs a little more of a buff. Not nearly as much as the spas12 and model 1887, and not necessarily better hitmarker range. It just needs better OHK range. I was first too weary of the idea of a 9 pellet gun doing 50+ damage per pellet, but if it did 36-15 damage it would be balanced by being the best shotgun for within 10 meters, kinda like the ranger in MW2. Lets be clear of what actual disagreement we have left: - You think the MW2 AA12 wouldn't have been cheap in MW3. I disagree. - You think that in terms of long range and short range the MW2 maps and the MW3 maps are equal. - You think the striker doesn't need any nerf right now. I disagree. - You think that the KSG still needs a buff. I previously disagreed by I realize that it does need a buff. - You think that the pump-action shotguns need to always have better hitmarker range then the full-auto and semi-auto shotguns to be useful. I disagree. I think that as long as they are rally powerful in close range they don't necessary have to have better hitmarker range than the non-pump-action shotguns. That's where we disagree, and why the only shotgun I am okay with doing 40-20 damage is the 1887, because it lets you sacrifice ammo, accuracy, and attachments for something close to what the spas-12 did (although the 1887 would have a more gradual damage dropoff that starts closer). I would hope that you can at least agree that at the very least maps like overgrown, wasteland, afghan, estate, carnival, and derail are much more long range focussed than nearly all of the MW3 maps. Other than Fallen and Liberation, name me a map that has as much open long range areas as the maps above. And there are lot of people who still think the striker needs a little nerfing when it comes to its "spammability" and minimum damage. If there was just as much close range in MW2 as there is in MW3, you wouldn't see everyone say that MW3 is a much more SMG focussed game while MW2 was considered a game where the only worthwhile primaries were the ARs, UMP (because of its long range damage) and Intervention. To give you a good example of the difference between MW2 and MW3, look at Lockdown. that map has some perches for long range and the ability to use the hallway, but everywhere else lends itself to short range with all the random cars all over the street and other forms of "random" cover. If that map were in MW2 it would have been bigger (and as a result would probably have had less doo-dooty spawns) and/or had less random cars on the street. Another good example would be dome. Yes, I know that's supposed to be MW3's shipment/W@Wdome/rust/nuketown, but compared to rust it has more rooms and cover (although in terms of area rust was smaller). And for a final example look at downturn. Seriously, other than the hallway, name me an area on downturn that doesn't big pieces of cover nearby. It's like the developers took a potential MW2 map, put in garry's mod, did "ctrl+c" on all the vehicles and then rapidly kept pressing "ctrl+v" while moving their mouse everywhere. Yes, there are a couple of MW2 maps with enough cover that they would fit in with MW3 maps, such as terminal and favela (that's probably why they are both going to be in MW3 DLC)., but most of the MW2's short range sections were more specific while in MW3 that same is more true of the long range sightlines. Is THAT conprehensive enough for you. Rather than removing akimbo, they need to do the following: - make akimbo hipfire much bigger than regular hipfire (this is so obvious that I'm starting to suspect that the MW3 were dumb enough to forget to leave said option open and that's why they haven't done it already) OR make the akimbo attachment reduce the damage per bullet significantly (there is no way this isn't possible since they can do this with the silencer attachment). - add sway to the machine pistols - decrease their center speed to 1400 and 1700 instead of 1500 and 2000 - change the headshot multipliers to 1.4 and 1.2 instead of 2.0 and 1.4 define consistent. Would you call 8 pellets at 42 damage per pellet consistent? would you call 9 pellets at 39 damage per pellet consistent?
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 15, 2012 14:44:11 GMT -5
You can't simply repeat yourself and expect that to make your arguments any more convincing. I see zero convincing reason why the Striker's damage should be reduced. There is no reason to make it less advantageous versus SMGs, ARs, and akimbo machine pistols, and no, saying that you want to nerf all of those too doesn't count, lol, or there wouldn't be any sort of issue in the first place.For the last time: seeing as how a player with an SMG, AR, or an akimbo MP could take a couple steps back and effectively reduce the Striker's damage to zero, the Striker should have a significant advantage versus those weapons in its range. If we open fire on each other in the Striker's minimum damage range, in the time it takes you to pull the right trigger three to four times while keeping your cross hairs centered on a moving target with your Striker, I've already killed you with my PP90M1's hipfire. There is no reason to make this arrangement any less favorable to the one group of weapons that has no use whatsoever outside of their effective range. This has been my argument for the last few posts on this matter and the best you've come up with is that the Striker "shouldn't be able to kill in 7 pellets w/out damage," lol. Regarding the AA12, you can continue to make irrelevant comparisons all you want, but there's no denying that the pre-patch MW3 AA12 with oh, let's say ExMags, Range, and Steady Aim was certainly a more competent weapon overall than the MW2 AA12, and it was totally fine in MW3. Finally, it's doubtful to me that any weapon that's only effective strictly within 500 units could ever really be considered cheap in this game, but that's another debate I suppose, lol. Btw, you keep making the same mistake of rattling off numbers while ignoring the actual game mechanics. To use the AA12 as an example, it's a fully-automatic weapon with a high rate of fire for a shotgun. It's far more advantageous to the AA12 to dish out more damage up close in exchange for 60 less minimum damage and 50 less units of range, because not only is this an extremely short distance in game, but time between shots is minimal. One more shot to kill the target at 450 units is a small sacrifice for more damage, especially considering that more pellets, slightly weaker pellets is much more preferable to fewer but stronger pellets. Again, the main disagreement is that I think shotguns should be highly dominant within their range, and you want them to be less powerful. You also want to nerf several other guns to try to maintain a balance, which I also disagree with; if there's any lesson to be learned from MW2, it's that not only do players strongly prefer having more good guns to choose from, but it's much easier to balance weapons when they're all mostly good. Let's say you've got two shotguns. One's a 60 RPM manual-action and the other is the Striker, and let's say the manual-action has the same range as the Striker. Why would you take the manual-action over the Striker even if the manual-action does more damage in a single shot when the Striker not only has decent one-shot killing potential but it can fire twice and kill the target if its first shot fails? The risk is not proportional to the reward.Seeing as how you are now agreeing that the KSG could do with a further buff, I don't see how you have any room left to argue this point. Again, compare the MW2 SPAS to the MW2 Striker, then look at the MW3 KSG to the MW3 Striker; in the former case, one could make a fairly convincing argument for either gun, whereas in the latter case, the Striker is indisputably better in the overwhelming majority of scenarios. (Seriously, this is like balance 101, lol.) Now, onto the maps... You could use a shotgun as if it were a primary on any map in MW2 and only run into trouble on Wasteland and possibly Derail (if you don't just hide out in a building), Rundown, and Afghan. On the subject of MW3 maps in which longer lines of sight figure prominently, I can think of Interchange, Village, and Bakara off the top of my head. You don't have much of a case here at all, especially when akimbo Machine Pistol secondaries are available to AR users. A better argument would be something along the lines of how MW3's maps have less obvious power positions and tend to focus more on continuous movement due to that and the hectic spawns, but you'd still be hard-pressed to demonstrate that MW2's SPAS would suddenly become overpowered in MW3, and the link would be a tenuous one at best for all the reasons I've stated previously. You continue to make uninformed statements. MW2 was absolutely not considered a game where the only viable weapons were "ARs, UMP (because of its long range damage) and Intervention." Not only was ever sniper rifle in MW2 usable with their own niches, but the Intervention arguably the worst of the bunch, with little to no redeeming qualities versus the Barret. The RPD and AUG are among the top guns in the game, and almost every SMG has some sort of advantageous characteristic versus the UMP. Finally, MW3 isn't SMG-centric. Does anyone complain how overpowered the SMGs are in comparison to the ARs due to the nature of the maps? Uh, nope, and if anyone did, they'd be scoffed at due to the existence of the Type-95, ACR/G36c, and MK14. MW3 strikes a better balance between ARs and SMGs than past games, but that doesn't make SMGs the dominant weapon class by any means. This is Call of Duty; if SMGs were inherently favored at all, it would be complained about everywhere, lol. Oh, and "consistent one-shot kill" means the majority of perfectly centered shots kill. For example, at least prior to the patch, the Model 1887 was capable of getting one shot kills all the way at 17m, but even with Steady Aim and perfectly aligned cross hairs, it wasn't guaranteed, just fairly possible, which means in actual combat situations, it's going to be a highly unlikely occurrence. To avoid filling this topic with any more lengthy posts, I'll be making a topic specifically for the discussion of what shotguns should be to continue in the future.
|
|
|
Post by I Am Hollywood5 on Feb 15, 2012 15:18:26 GMT -5
Hardly makes a difference. Spas-12 is still completely impractical to use when it gets constant point-blank hitmarkers. IW wouldn't know balance if it bit them in the arse. In order for a pump action shotgun to be a primary weapon, it should only need 2 pellets to kill with Damage when up close, end of story.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 15, 2012 17:14:13 GMT -5
zeroix, before I reply to the rest of your post, I have to ask:
Are you seriously saying that machine pistols shouldn't be nerfed?
|
|
|
Post by unforgivenxile on Feb 15, 2012 17:27:30 GMT -5
8bitasplodeCome on dude, surely by now you would have been able to see that zeroix is making a whole lot more sense then you are, cant we just agree with him and move on? Your argument about the map sizes is negligable, mostly beacause of what zeroix said, but also due to you not knowing what all the map packs for mw3 are going to contain. Also, your argument about the striker is pointless. You have the midset that the striker needs to be nerfed to match the other shotguns, but that isnt at all practical. All non striker (except for maybe the usas) shotguns should be buffed to the same potential as the striker, not the other way around. If you really, really did want to argue a case against the striker, you would be better off going down the path of a lower fire rate instead of lower minimum damage. Good day Sir.
|
|