|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 15, 2012 18:17:08 GMT -5
You have the midset that the striker needs to be nerfed to match the other shotguns, but that isnt at all practical. My argument is that the following guns need nerfs (some more than others) - striker, ACR, Type 95, all the machine pistols, mp7 and the following need buffs - spas-12, model 1887, aa12, all the light machine guns, and that having the shotguns w/out proficiencies be as powerful as they were in MW2 would be too much. But apparently, shotguns should become much more powerful than I am suggesting because of machine pistols instead of the machine pistols.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on Feb 15, 2012 20:30:39 GMT -5
Why do we need to balance the shotguns. Can't we just make them more overpowered than anything else in cod history. I miss my 13 pellet usas with damage. Besides even with too many pellets to be fair they still disappear after they leave the shotguns effective range. This wouldn't be too game breaking compared to the MPs. Besides if the shotguns were literally impossible to beat at close range then you would have to beat them at a distance. Do we have any guns that are op at distance? For ARs the mp7, acr, type, and mk14 all can crush supercharged shotguns. Smgs have the pp90 and p90. All the SR will win and if you really want to be a bastard you can outshoot them with an lmg.
All in favor of overbuffing them?
(btw mp7 is now an assault rifle, IW just put it in the wrong class by accident. Dumb devs.)
|
|
|
Post by MastaQ on Feb 15, 2012 20:41:02 GMT -5
Why do we need to balance the shotguns. Can't we just make them more overpowered than anything else in cod history. I miss my 13 pellet usas with damage. Besides even with too many pellets to be fair they still disappear after they leave the shotguns effective range. This wouldn't be too game breaking compared to the MPs. Besides if the shotguns were literally impossible to beat at close range then you would have to beat them at a distance. Do we have any guns that are op at distance? For ARs the mp7, acr, type, and mk14 all can crush supercharged shotguns. Smgs have the pp90 and p90. All the SR will win and if you really want to be a bastard you can outshoot them with an lmg. All in favor of overbuffing them? (btw mp7 is now an assault rifle, IW just put it in the wrong class by accident. Dumb devs.) You almost can't overbuff the shotguns when the Akimbo FMG9s still exist.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Jigglypuff on Feb 15, 2012 21:14:34 GMT -5
Why do we need to balance the shotguns. Can't we just make them more overpowered than anything else in cod history. I miss my 13 pellet usas with damage. Besides even with too many pellets to be fair they still disappear after they leave the shotguns effective range. This wouldn't be too game breaking compared to the MPs. Besides if the shotguns were literally impossible to beat at close range then you would have to beat them at a distance. Do we have any guns that are op at distance? For ARs the mp7, acr, type, and mk14 all can crush supercharged shotguns. Smgs have the pp90 and p90. All the SR will win and if you really want to be a bastard you can outshoot them with an lmg. All in favor of overbuffing them? (btw mp7 is now an assault rifle, IW just put it in the wrong class by accident. Dumb devs.) I am in favor of overbuffing Shotguns. It makes sense, if you cannot outgun him up close, put some distance between you two. Haha, the MP7 comment reminds me of something. The pre-nerf 1887 Akimbos were supposed to be unscoped Sniper Rifles, IW just accidentally placed them in the Shotgun category.
|
|
|
Post by shaktazuki on Feb 15, 2012 21:16:21 GMT -5
I guess my opinion doesn't need to be restated. So I won't. As an aside, I love it when some fool pulls out his gold Striker in one of my games. As I tell them afterwards, "Yeah, shotgun warz iz fun, idn't it? I can haz shotgun warz all day!" Come to think of it, I say that to FMG9 users too.
|
|
KenDirson
True Bro
Buff MW3 Shotguns
Posts: 10,129
|
Post by KenDirson on Feb 15, 2012 22:14:52 GMT -5
I guess my opinion doesn't need to be restated. So I won't. As an aside, I love it when some fool pulls out his gold Striker in one of my games. As I tell them afterwards, "Yeah, shotgun warz iz fun, idn't it? I can haz shotgun warz all day!" Come to think of it, I say that to FMG9 users too. Lmao, I'm that fool, until someone else pulls a SPAS/KSG/USAS, then I pull my maxed out SPAS/KSG/USAS/Model/AA12 to counter it, depending on what it is. At some point it feels like a game of chess or something.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Jigglypuff on Feb 15, 2012 23:28:01 GMT -5
I just busted out the Striker for the first time in a while. I miss those extra pellets. But at least it is still usable.
|
|
|
Post by shaktazuki on Feb 15, 2012 23:32:14 GMT -5
grumble... it takes 3 shots to guarantee a kill... all they did was make me waste ammo... I'll just go with the USAS12 for now.
|
|
|
Post by unforgivenxile on Feb 16, 2012 2:27:06 GMT -5
Overbuff the shotguns? No, i dont want them turning into something everyone will start using, but at least make them more practical i.e. 2 pellets to kill with damage, 3 without (on the manual actions that is).
|
|
|
Post by unforgivenxile on Feb 16, 2012 3:09:21 GMT -5
You have the midset that the striker needs to be nerfed to match the other shotguns, but that isnt at all practical. My argument is that the following guns need nerfs (some more than others) - striker, ACR, Type 95, all the machine pistols, mp7 and the following need buffs - spas-12, model 1887, aa12, all the light machine guns, and that having the shotguns w/out proficiencies be as powerful as they were in MW2 would be too much. But apparently, shotguns should become much more powerful than I am suggesting because of machine pistols instead of the machine pistols. Would you agree with me if i said: The ACR/MP7 should be given some more recoil (especially the MP7) The Type 95 should be given a significantly lower rate of fire, and possibly a shorter 2 bullet kill range The machine pistols are given a bit more recoil on their own, and a lot more spread when akimboed (im talking mw2 smg akimbo spread) The striker is given a fire rate nerf (if anything at all) The manual action shotguns become a 2 pellet kill with damage, 3 without (or incorparate a system along the lines of what bedlem suggested) The AA-12 is given a much higher minimum damage And the LMGs have some or all of the following - Faster ADS, no damage dropoff/dropoff begins much later, less recoil ???
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on Feb 16, 2012 6:01:17 GMT -5
How about taking off the damage drop for shotguns and adjusting their range accordingly for fairness purposes. I thought of this with the aa12 in mind. That gun has too small of a range to have a damage drop.
|
|
|
Post by unforgivenxile on Feb 16, 2012 6:48:58 GMT -5
How about taking off the damage drop for shotguns and adjusting their range accordingly for fairness purposes. I thought of this with the aa12 in mind. That gun has too small of a range to have a damage drop. I have always partially objected to damage dropoff on shotguns, mostly due to the fact that they have such a limited range already due to pellet spread and the pellets completely disappearing before 20 metres. I say partially because im afraid it wouldnt be well implemented, simply because there would be fewer reasons to use one certain shotgun over another. Ill use the model 1887 as an example here. The only reason people would use that weapon over say the spas or ksg is due to its far superior damage at range, that is its only benefit. Of course there would be other ways to differentiate between the shotguns if they had no damage dropoff (i.e. one has more damage, another has tighter pellet spread, this has slightly further max range), but having dropoff in there just helps to distinguish them from one another better. Not to mention it makes balacing them much easier, as well as giving Den more stats to hunt down and devour
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 16, 2012 9:59:18 GMT -5
8bitasplodeI didn't bother elaborating on machine pistols because they are not the focus of this discussion but since it's tangentially related and you don't have any better counter-points, I'll explain. For the record, if it were up to me, shotguns would be secondaries again (along with akimbo machine pistols) because that's where they fit the best. Anyway, like I said, I prefer to buff instead of nerf for the reasons previously stated, and firmly believe in having highly competent secondaries because it adds a certain layer of depth to the class system. For example, let's say I have an SMG class in MW2, and I want to run Stopping Power; I grab the SPAS-12, and decide to run Steady Aim too... but then I have a potentially better weapon in the form of akimbo Rafficas depending on what kind of playstyle I'm going for. I could also swap Stopping Power for Cold-Blooded and stick with the SPAS, and it'll still work, although I'll have to give up some of that amazing power. Now, if I were playing Black Ops, my choice is pretty simple regardless of my primary: placeholder pistol or Stinger. This isn't a dig at Black Ops; I'm just trying to illustrate why I prefer to have good secondaries... they're a hell of a lot more fun. That said, the machine pistols in MW3 (specifically the FMG9 and MP9), are too good and definitely deserve to be nerfed. (I find it hilarious that it would be extremely easy to balance the MPs, yet IW has been tweaking Akimbo with the FMG9 in mind for months with little to no effect, lol.) However, you want to nerf the Striker and one of the reasons I don't agree with nerfing it, other than it not warranting a nerf in the slightest (a point you still haven't backed up at all), is that it would lose ground to guns like akimbo MPs, SMGs, the Type 95, etc. Your response is "well, let's nerf those guns too," and that's where I'm in total disagreement, with the exception of the machine pistols. It is not only more effective but more realistic to nerf only the most flagrant offenders i.e. akimbo FMG9 and instead of nerfing the Striker because... why? To bring it in line with the underpowered manual-action shotguns? That won't make the manual-actions any more viable; it will just make the Striker and shotguns as a whole less attractive, and the manual actions will only be good at killing things a yard or two away because while you know I (and pretty much everyone else in this topic) am right about 3/8 pellets to kill by default or 2/8 with Damage being the standard for manual-actions, you think they should be next to useless at minimum damage range with the sole exception of the Model 1887... even though the fact that it still isn't easy to get one-shot kills in the the Model 1887's minimum damage range should tell you something right there. If you nerf the Striker at this point, all you'll do is solidify the USAS's position as the overall best shotgun. If you enact your changes to rest of the shotguns, the manuals will be better at close range (good) while still slinging the equivalent of birdshot at long range (bad). Bottom line, the entire group suffers. Again: what is the case against the current Striker? How can you justify nerfing the current Striker but not the current USAS? Do you SERIOUSLY think you are going to get 5/8 pellet kills past 12m with any sort of consistency when its been proven, time and time and time again, that 4/8 pellets doesn't even guarantee point-blank kills? How can you possibly claim that MW2 shotguns are good enough to be primaries in one post (correct) then describe MW2 as a game dominated by ARs, the UMP, and the Interfoxtrottingvention in the next one (blatantly false)? @i Am Hollywood I agree 110%... it makes no sense to me that IW took the SPAS, for example, and made it so that you'd need Damage, the final proficieny, to make it take the same amount of pellets to kill as the non-SP MW2 SPAS-12, and lowered its range. Who the foxtrot OK'd the decision to make any pump a 4/8 pellet kill at max damage? Whoever did seriously must not have had the slightest clue about how shotgun mechanics actually work. For example, you will almost never get a one-shot kill if your minimum damage is so low you need 7/8 pellets to kill. cmckWatch out. 8bitasplode will attempt to argue you to death that an AA12 with no damage drop-off would be the most overpowered gun in the game. While I don't wish for the AA12 to become TOO powerful due to how easy it is to use, the AA12's range is so short that I firmly believe it should be essentially unbeatable within that range like the pre-patch AA12. IW is probably better off relying on unintentional glitches to balance their guns than their on-purpose adjustments.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on Feb 16, 2012 10:59:33 GMT -5
^ Regarding the aa12 even if it was over buffed to make it superior to the others, unless they fix its ammo it will still need specialist. I can live with basically the new fmg9 primary at the cost of reapers, ac130s and stealth bombers.
btw has anyone who uses the aa12 gotten a kill where it was doing max damage? I can only seem to get barely close enough to get hitmarkers, which is why I use range ex mags. This doesn't help specialist at all and I'm still pinned to it because I need scavanger and SoH. This gun just has major flaws even if it were fixed.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 16, 2012 13:02:16 GMT -5
Would you agree with me if i said: The ACR/MP7 should be given some more recoil (especially the MP7) The main reason for those is to decrease their long-range capabilities. With the ACR and Mp7 there are three ways to do such: - increase sway - increase recoil - decrease long range damage Although personally I would like to see the minimum damage decreased on the ACR, increasing the recoil signifcantly could work just as well. I've said numerous times that the best way to fix the type 95 would be to decrease the RoF so that it is less spammable. So no real disagreement. Only notable disagreements would be that I think the 2.0 headhsot multiplier is ridiculous for a secondary and that the machine pistols should do somewhat less damage overall. A lower fire rate cap on the striker would be an effective way of nerfing. Yes to the pump-action shotguns. For the AA-12, would 18-8 damage work (changes from 7-20 pellet kill to 6-13 pellet kill, a 35% decrease in pellet requirement for minimum damage)? I'd probably disagree with that approach to the LMGs to some degree, but if the damage were changed to: LSW:40-25 MK46:42-30 MG36: 42-32 w/1.1 body multiplier PKP: 42-32 w/1.1 body multiplier M60: 50-35 It would increase the range significantly without even having to change the values for where the dropoff begins and ends.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 16, 2012 15:22:01 GMT -5
Anyway, like I said, I prefer to buff instead of nerf for the reasons previously stated, and firmly believe in having highly competent secondaries because it adds a certain layer of depth to the class system. Even though secondaries are one your biggest reasons for wanting the shotguns to be as powerful in this game as they were in MW2? BTW, as long as machine pistols are not substantially nerfed, pistols and overkill become more less useful. I actually like that you bring black ops up, because I remeber that WoddysGamertag has been making a similar argument as to why the machine pistols need to be really powerful. But something to keep in mind about black ops is that one of the reasons black ops had much more stinger usage was the fact that they were basically the only thing that could be used to take down air support other than an M60 w/hardened and ghost. IN MW3 meanwhile it's easy to take down air support with primary weapons, and as a result you don't need stingers to take them down. Unfortunately machine pistols (especially FMGs) are so powerful that they can TAKE DOWN A JUGGERNAUT, HELICOPTER, OR AH6 WITHOUT RELOADING.But I now know that you acknowledge the fact that the machine pistols need to be nerfed. And if they finaly nerfed machine pistols enough that pistols and overkill were used more, I can guarantee you that it would also make all the shotguns somewhat more useful. And the Type 95 definitely still needs a nerf. It's combination of high damage and high RoF needs to be changed to one of the two, preferable high damage and a lower RoF. It's not a guarantee, but it happens a significant amount, especially with steady aim, which should tell you something considering that the gun has such big spread. And I'm not even talking about the 1887 w/damage. if the spas-12 w/damage did 28 damage per pellet, it would get a ridiculous amount of OHK longshots, especially with steady aim. It would also make every other pump action shotgun useless. Because the USAS does only 5 damage per pellet at its minimum range and only fires around 1100 pellets per minute while the striker does 15 damage per pellet at its minimum range and fires up to 2100 pellets per minute. The striker being nerfed by either a fire rate decrease or a minimum damage reduction would solidify the USAS as the long range multi-hit shotgun. But you did remind me of something important that would be a good thing to do to all of the shotguns: Applying the sprint bonus the USAS gets to all of the shotguns. Agreed. IW went overboard with trying to compensate for the inclusion of range, damage, and specialist. I personally liked the stakeout from black ops (other than the low ammo) because it was usually a 3-4 pellet kill but unlike the shotguns in MW3 you were almost always guaranteed to land enough pellets if you made sure to ADS. For comparison, the pump-action shotguns in MW3 are weaker than the shotguns in every previous CoD since CoD4. Even the trenchgun in W@W was more consistent. BTW, to the guy who suggested the no damage drop-off, I can at the very least say that it wouldn't work well with USAS because you would probably have to make it either too good at long range or too weak at close range. I know you said that obviously the range would need to be adjusted accordingly, but what makes the USAS balanced is the medium RoF combined with damage that makes it a OHK at very close range and a 2-4HK at longer ranges.
|
|
|
Post by shaktazuki on Feb 16, 2012 15:48:24 GMT -5
Once again, it appears that some people truly want a game where the difference amongst the guns is purely cosmetic. I so do hope that Treyarch gives you that game.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on Feb 16, 2012 16:11:04 GMT -5
shaktazuki I want the guns to be different obviously, but my suggestion was a way to balance the pumps mainly. It doesn't mean that the damage, pellet count, rate of fire, and range will be the same on all of them. With all of those variables do we really need to have long range hit markers with pumps just to keep up with the tradition of having damage drop offs on shotguns. 8bitasplode I didn't think about the usas. I personally will let all the other shotguns get nerfed into oblivion before an across the board buff weakens my golden usas. I'm still thankful that this patch didn't change my gun.
|
|
|
Post by shaktazuki on Feb 16, 2012 16:18:29 GMT -5
My comment is not primarily directed at you, cmck.
|
|
cmck
True Bro
Hit him again!
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by cmck on Feb 16, 2012 16:46:59 GMT -5
^ sorry thought I was finally under attack to defend my assertion. I might just be a little nervous about presenting a multitude of theoretical arguments that boil down to a moot point anyway since we can't know what our ideas will do in the metagame.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 16, 2012 17:40:57 GMT -5
Once again, it appears that some people truly want a game where the difference amongst the guns is purely cosmetic. I so do hope that Treyarch gives you that game. Treyarch already make a game where everything is only different cosmetically. It's called black ops and it was a boring game where everyone used either an AR or the 74u: - The assault rifles all do pretty much the same damage - 3/4 of the LMGs don't even have anything to make them different from the ARs other than the bigger recoil and less attachments - 3 of the shotguns get one attachment and other one gets no attachments - nearly all the submachines do 30-20 damage at a rate of 937.5 RPM Believe me, I'm also a huge fan of the USAS. It's right now my favorite gun, mainly because it's great for longshots without being cheap
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 16, 2012 20:49:05 GMT -5
Once again, it appears that some people truly want a game where the difference amongst the guns is purely cosmetic. I so do hope that Treyarch gives you that game. No one wants that.
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 16, 2012 21:19:41 GMT -5
8bitasplodeThe Type 95 is a completely different discussion. So is Overkill, but realistically, it will always be an awful perk in MW3. If it circumvented movement speed penalties, it would have utility use, but until then, no thanks. Now, your assertion that a 5/8 pellet kill at a distance happens a "significant" amount is pure insanity, i.e. it doesn't match up with reality, at all. Do you think people would be ****ing and moaning about shotguns all the time if they were able to get a statistically significant amount of long-distance (for a shot gun) Longshots? (Hint: the answer is "no.") Give me your estimate about how much you think it happens; I'll demonstrate the reality, and we'll see how the two compare. Btw, I assume Steady Aim. Without it, gfl with your "significant" amount of one-shot Longshots, lol. 4/8 pellets to kill wouldn't get a "ridiculous" amount of OHKOs, either, but for the record, even if it did, it wouldn't even be close to overpowered considering that's the entire point of a shotgun and if you miss you will probably die. I went over this in a previous post. Point blank: you are wrong and your expectations don't match up with reality. Your sole argument against the Striker is literally minimum damage and rate of fire. Once again you foolishly look only at numbers in a superficial manner with no thought to proper interpretation. The USAS is a fully-automatic shotgun that puts out nine pellets per shot. It has longer range than the Striker does, including a 30% longer max damage range. The Striker's only significant advantages are the fact that it can fire faster and has higher minimum damage, but nevermind the latter is balanced by the fact that the USAS can still potentially kill in a range where the Striker's pellets have disappeared, you want to (halfway) take one of those things from the Striker... why? You don't want to solidify the USAS's position as "multi-hit long-range shotgun." You want to solidify its position as "best shotgun, period." Finally, funny how you claim Black Ops is boring because everyone uses either "ARs or the 74u" yet are so against having powerful shotguns. How many times can I say this? Unless shotguns dominate at close range, there's no reason to use them. What is the incentive to use something other than the game's Famas or AK74u equivalents when your weapon can almost go toe-to-toe against shotguns in their effective range while making them helpless when in yours? Without MW2-level shotguns, you won't be able to stop at the ACR, Type 95, and MP7; you'll have to nerf a TON of guns to make everything actually balanced. It'd so much easier and more sensible to just buff the shotguns... but no, they'd be overpowered since ARs have idle sway now. Whatever man. P.S. I would much prefer to a single competent manual-action shotgun versus three shotguns overall underpowered so as to accommodate "strengths" and weaknesses.
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 16, 2012 21:43:06 GMT -5
and a huge joke of idle sway... who thought of charging ffs..
|
|
|
Post by shaktazuki on Feb 16, 2012 21:46:18 GMT -5
Once again, it appears that some people truly want a game where the difference amongst the guns is purely cosmetic. I so do hope that Treyarch gives you that game. No one wants that. Oh, I beg to differ. That, you see, is the logical end of "balancing". Have you never read Harrison Bergnon?
|
|
asasa
True Bro
fuck
Posts: 4,255
|
Post by asasa on Feb 16, 2012 22:10:38 GMT -5
Not interested. Perfect balance is not what we want.
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 16, 2012 22:24:44 GMT -5
Playing MW3 now. Experimenting with the post-patch SPAS.
It is infuriating.
|
|
|
Post by 8bitasplode on Feb 17, 2012 3:21:54 GMT -5
8bitasplodeThe Type 95 is a completely different discussion. So is Overkill, but realistically, it will always be an awful perk in MW3. If it circumvented movement speed penalties, it would have utility use, but until then, no thanks. Overkill is useless mainly because you can just choose a machine pistol if you want a second primary. I remember it being a lot more useful in HC mode in CoD4 because stopping power and juggernaut were not nearly as useful. I worded it badly, my point was that with the 1887, it's not as rare to get a longshot than with other shotguns. Feels like whenever I am perfectly centered with steady aim that about half of the time it kills in one shot at the very edge of the pellet range. And even though it's the 1887 w/steady aim, that still significantly larger than the spas-12 or ksg hipfire. [quote[4/8 pellets to kill wouldn't get a "ridiculous" amount of OHKOs, either, but for the record, even if it did, it wouldn't even be close to overpowered considering that's the entire point of a shotgun and if you miss you will probably die. I went over this in a previous post.[/quote] Yeah, whatever could be the problem with a gun doing 25 damage per pellet at 875 units. No way that would become a problem at all. Best of all, I'm sure you have a way to make the 1887 useful if the spas-12 with more ammo, smaller hipfire spread, attachments, AND did 40-20. And keep in mind that the 1887's drop-off is closer than the spas-12's dropoff. Oh wait you don't. You don't want to buff the pump-action shotguns in a way that makes each one different but easily usable You can claim that the spas-12 will suck unless it does 20 damage at a distance, but 36-10 damage w/out damage would still give the gun an advantage over the other shotguns. having the 1887 be the 40-20 shotgun while the spas-12 does 36-10 (which would still give it 2PK range damage of about 500 units) would be a great way to make both usable in unique ways. striker would still have a blatant advantage for close range if it fired at 250 RPM instead of 350 RPM. It would just make the USAS more definitively better at ranges between 500-700 units. Striker would still be a great longer range alternative to the AA-12 though. You keep ignoring every time I have said that the spas-12 and 1887 need a close range buff. Unless for you close range is somehow 17-20 meters I'm fine with shotguns being very powerful. I just think that having any shotgun being powerful at AR range would be retarded. Even the USAS takes many hits to kill someone who is around 20 meters away. Seriously, how hard is that for you to grasp. It's not "Oh well if isn't as good as it was in MW2 then it's shit." It's that the pump-action shotguns are currently shit because they do less close range damage than every other call of duty. FIxing that specifically would fix 90% of people's complaints about the guns. Hell, I bet you wouldn't have a problem with a spas-12 that does 40-10 damage if it had the same sprint bonus that the USAS has. No it wouldn't need to be every weapon (BTW, the ACR and MP7 needing a nerf has nothing to do with the shotguns). I don't think the following need any nerf or buff at all: USAS, CM901, AK47, SCAR-L, M4A1, G36C, FAD, PP90M1, UMP, P90, Barret 50cal, MSR, AS50, RSASS, All the non-M320 launchers, the equipment (other than a slight damage buff to frags). I don't even have a problem with the way knifing works in MW3. And frankly the only thing I would buff on the handguns is their raise and drop time. They are actually great close range weapons the only problem is they take too long to switch to unless you are using SoH pro. But of course next to no one uses the handguns because they would rather get dual FMGs or the MP9 that can kill in two bullets to the head at AR range (check the MP9's damage stats if you don't believe me on that one). So explain to me what guns I would suddenly want to nerf to "accommodate" the shotguns. Seriously, when a secondary has better range than the SMGs the solution isn't to buff the SMGs.
|
|
Zero IX
True Bro
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Posts: 1,655
|
Post by Zero IX on Feb 17, 2012 17:16:06 GMT -5
I'm pretty much done with this discussion. Not only have I countered all of your points in an adept and articulate manner, but your responses are superficial and your reasoning varies between circular or blatantly spurious (there's an entire past on page three you ignored). All you do is pull a sentence out of my post, state your disagreement, repeat your opinion, then rinse and repeat.
You have not only failed to build upon the argument you put forth several posts ago, but you have abandoned its central tenet for two responses and counting! At this point, you might as well just be disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement, and since I'm not a serial contrarian, I have no desire to carry this conversation past the point of productivity.
During the course of this discussion, you have demonstrated nothing other than a slavish devotion to your ideas.
Nonetheless, my response:
1) 50% of perfectly centered shots are one-shot kills at the edge of the Model 1887's range according to you. I know for a fact that you are wrong pre-patch; I'll repeat a simple test tonight using the XM25 to mark distance and we'll see if the patch has had some unexpected and drastic change on the performance of the Model (hint: it didn't). Furthermore, how often do you think you will have the luxury of perfectly centered crosshairs in a combat situation when the other guy just has to fire vaguely in your direction to spray you down?
I've pointed this out numerous times. It has been attested to in countless game clips on stationary targets. When a shotgun is able to score hitmarkers in close range, what makes you think the problem will be anything but disproportionately worse at a longer range with less damage to work with? I've posed that question before and you have yet do respond in a coherent manner to it.
2) "Yeah, whatever could be the problem with a gun doing 25 damage per pellet at 875 units. No way that would become a problem at all." This kind of response is typical of you, and I'm making it an issue because it is obstructive to having a meaningful dialogue. I pointed out where you were wrong, reiterated a point, and instead of explaining why you disagree, you repeat what I said, state your disagreement and move on. Sorry, I don't waste 20 minutes of my day to demolish cop-out responses like that.
One last time: a manual-action shotgun should ALWAYS be a one-shot kill (especially with Damage) with perfectly centered Steady Aim-tighted hip fire cross hairs, no matter the distance. If my aim is perfect, the target should be dead every single time. Manual-action shotguns stop being useful as soon as I'm not sure one shot will kill the target even if my cross hairs are perfectly aligned with center mass. Every other gun is guaranteed to kill the target if my aim is true; only the SPAS, KSG, and Model 1887 make me think "I hope this shot kills this guy" when I pull the trigger.
Example of good: MW2 SPAS, which rewarded good aim with kills and had advantages versus disadvantages versus the other shotguns. EXample of bad: MW3 Model which only nets longshots if one's lucky on top of skilled and sometimes fails to one-shot at ranges where it definitely should.
3) You don't want powerful pump-action shotguns; you just want slightly better but still underpowered pump-action shotguns. If the SPAS-12 were 40-10, it'd be a two-pellet at max damage with Damage (good) and it would take all eight pellets to kill at minimum damage (bad). The fact that the Model can't get consistent kills at minimum damage should tell... oh, wait, I've been through this before, and you have still presented NO JUSTIFICATION for a manual-action shotgun to be doing as much damage at its max range as a fully or semi-auto shotgun does at a similar range.
Your changes would make manual-actions less awful to level up and more reliable at one-shotting at close range which is good but would leave them as overall disadvantageous weapons vs. other guns including the fully and semi-auto shotguns. I want the manual-actions to be just as good as their fellow shotties but in a different way.
4) The Striker would be more spammable with significantly less one-shot potential than the USAS. Aren't you the one arguing that the KSG's slightly better one-shot potential versus the USAS makes it more balanced? Lmao, what a double-standard. I made two specific points regarding this issue in my last post and you addressed exactly neither in your "response." You want to make the Striker an AA12 alternative? Then you want to make the USAS the overall best shotgun. You want balance? Then let the AA12 dominate its niche and make the Striker a USAS alternative. That makes so much sense than what you are seemingly trying to accomplish, lol.
Finally, for the umpteenth time, I don't care at all about having three different skins of a gun that's varying degrees of semi-usefulness. Stop yammering on about balancing the three SPAS, KSG, and Model 1887. I've already stated why I don't care multiple times. You can do whatever you want with the other two as long as one is usable, and if it were up to me, I'd make one of them (the SPAS) the rough equivalent of the MW2 SPAS, another the spiritual successor to the MW2 M1014 (the KSG), and the last one would deal massive damage over a short distance with low capacity and larger spread, not unlike the MW2 Ranger. Oh, look! Now we have three guns that are balanced alongside the MW3 USAS and Striker, each with unique characteristics that make them far more satisfying to use as non-novelties.
Oh, and you're the one who rather ridiculously postulated that MW2 shotguns would have been used as primaries more in MW2 if MW2 ARs had idle sway; I'm merely applying your own shoddy reasoning to MW3 and pointing out that without a more drastic action is needed to make the shotguns viable versus the other guns. Presumably, you want to balance all the guns, right? Well, one can make a reasonable argument that the Type 95 or MP7 is a little to good compared to the other ARs or SMGs, but any of those ARs or SMGs is a more overall advantageous weapon the manual-action shotguns.
Going up against a shotgun in close-quarters with an AR should be like taking out a sniper who knows you're there at long range: very difficult because you're in what's supposed to be the effective range of their weapon.
Anyway, I'm not interested at all in Overkill or your ideas on nerfing this gun or that gun. I was merely making a (valid) point about your attitude towards the shotguns. Until we get MW2-level shotguns, they won't be balanced. Seriously what do you or anyone else expect when you take a secondary, nerf it, make it a primary while certain other secondaries or primaries stay the same or get better? It's common sense.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Feb 17, 2012 17:52:18 GMT -5
Honestly, sometimes I feel like I'm not playing the same game you guys are. If I have a decent connection, I do better on 10 out of 16 maps using a shotgun than any other primary when playing a non-objective gamemode (FFA, TDM, and even Kill Confirmed). This is true using any of the shotguns I currently have leveled up, which are the Striker, the USAS, and the KSG.
Is this not the case for you guys? I am not the most skilled player and I am able to do well with the shotguns. Why are people still clamoring for buffs to some of them?
|
|