MW3 Noob Gun List

[iw5000]

Apr 26, 2012 11:44:25 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

LOL, I don't think anyone ever complained about LMGs or the AK-47.

Apr 26, 2012 9:41:53 GMT -5 iw5000 said:

But the stone cold truth with that reasoning...is that no game can ever make a purely 100% fair game where all 25 guns are perfectly equal (in different ways). Ain't happening. There's always going to be a gun that is slightly easier in some category.

Of course you can make a balanced game. It's not that hard.

For example, why should I use the AK-47 and CM901? The ACR has much better recoil, better damage, better rate of fire and better reload

Uhhh....use the AK because it has better damage? Unless I missed something, the AK has more damage. So there's a reason. That's why I prefer the AK. And it works MUCH better with a silencer (iron sights) than the ACR. Much better. The ACR at times feels like it's shooting rubber bullets. .

MW3 has obvious balance issues and it's boring when everyone uses the same gun.

Question. Why would you care what opponents use? If I go 50-5 in a game, i'm barely going to know what any of their guns were, I only died five times lol. So what does it matter? The only way I would remotely even be aware of all the opponent's gun useage, would be IF I am getting my azz handed to me, going like 8-35 every game.

So as it is.....gun use, what pct of the CoD universe is using what game....is kind of irrelevant. Who cares. You should care what YOU use. What you like. What works for you. That's why the concept of 'noob' gun is ridiculous. Hell, use a gun that just sounds cool to shoot, or looks fun on the TV, ....there are tons of reasons to mix it up. But none of them, ...should involve concerning what others do.

[eLantern]

Apr 24, 2012 20:42:36 GMT -5 aidsaidsaids said:

This thread is noob.

indeed.

[eLantern]

Apr 26, 2012 11:44:25 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

why should I use the AK-47 and CM901? The ACR has much better recoil, better damage, better rate of fire and better reload.

The main strength of the CM901 and AK47, which are near clones of one another, is in their effective range. Both weapons will drop opponents at around 1500 units of measure (don't know what this converts to in game meters) in .174 (AK47) and .180 (CM901) seconds. These numbers are actually tops in comparison to the other fully automatic ARs at that range, but this also means that they're not as strong in comparison to the others at the closer ranges and further ranges. Also, since both the CM901 and AK47 have a higher max damage amount then most of the other ARs they are given a better capability to earn penetration kills, at least within their effective range and the closer ranges.

In comparison to themselves the CM901 has the quicker reload and swap times, plus it can be argued as having a better Iron Sight too, but those pluses come with a slightly slower RoF, a very slightly less effective range, plus less friendly recoil. It has some higher recoil numbers, but a hair better re-centering speed, plus the fact that it has a slower RoF might actually help its accuracy reach a similar level to, at least to a degree, to the AK47.

Nearly all the weapons seem to have been designed to serve some imaginable purpose or niche within the game. Now, how valuable those niches are is how people determine and form tiers for the weapons, but honestly it factors more to a particular player's styled gameplay within specific maps. If a player plans to control the types of engagements within a game then picking a weapon which gives him the best ability to win those engagements obviously becomes the "best" weapon for the job. Angry opponents might consider this player a n00b because he's constantly getting the upper hand regardless to what weapon he/she is using. If a player was attempting to shot across map with the PP90M1, is it still the n00b weapon many accuse it of? Answer: No, of course not. It's just that the weapon is very effective within it's area of specialty and it annoys the hell out of a lot of people that the gameplay strategy and tactic to use it in its most effective manner isn't all that difficult for many reasons therefore it gets used by a lot of people online and easily categorized by the many as being a n00b weapon.

EDIT: Funny story - Just last night me and three of my friends were playing a full squad in Dom which we won the previous game at the last second. After the game was over they were talking doo-doo about our team only using n00b weapons, so we told them to pick some weapons that wouldn't qualify as n00b weapon so we could use them and we suggested some weapons they could use. Needless to say we still won the next game and they complained the whole way through the match and then immediately backed out of the lobby afterwards. Thing was that each of us made sure we strove to use the weapon we picked in their most effective method of use verses what it appeared they were doing. They were taking weapons like the CM901, AK47, and FAD and trying to use them constantly in close quarters combat. I was mixing up using the M16 and CM901, but staying out of the areas where CQC was constantly occurring and when I decided to venture into those areas I re-spawned using a PM-9 which I also set-up pre-game and hip-fired the loving sh*t out of it. I also tried using the L86 LSW at times, but was finding the lack of mobility a pain in the ass, so I switched away from it... not a fan of LMGs.

[Marvel4]

Apr 26, 2012 14:07:03 GMT -5 iw5000 said:

Uhhh....use the AK because it has better damage? Unless I missed something, the AK has more damage. So there's a reason. That's why I prefer the AK. And it works MUCH better with a silencer (iron sights) than the ACR. Much better. The ACR at times feels like it's shooting rubber bullets.

The higher damage doesn't matter. Both kill in three hits or two hits if one is a headshot. The iron sights are personal preference. In my opinion the ACR has better iron sights.

Question. Why would you care what opponents use?

I shoot someone with an AK. The recoil goes all over the place and he just turns around and instantly kills me with his ACR.

The same happens with weapons like the MP5 and PM9 vs the MP7.

[iw5000]

Both kill in three (neither kills in two)...but the AK kills at a further range. My '3 bullets' with the AK can extend it's range up to say 40 meters...whereas the ACR only goes up to 33. That's a difference. That's a factor. It's something.

yes..that range distance decreases over time....but honestly, once one starts getting 45, 50 meters out....those guns aren't real effective.

I've used both guns.....(about 2,700 kills with both)...and i personally prefer the AK, iron with silencer....over the ACR equipped the same. I do better with the AK. If someone kills me with the ACR....more power to them.

[Marvel4]

At that range you will miss even more with the AK, so the ACR is even more effective. And it can kill in three shots at long range if one is a headshot.

[iw5000]

Apr 26, 2012 15:20:39 GMT -5 Marvel4 said:

At that range you will miss even more with the AK, so the ACR is even more effective. And it can kill in three shots at long range if one is a headshot.

Not for me. I already said, under the above setup...the AK works better for me. I prefer how it feels, shoots, etc...

[zeroix]

There are two things I'd like to respond to. First is megaqwerty's assertion that the PM-9 takes more skill to use than the MP7. Just to make it perfectly clear where I stand and what my overall point is, I find mega's assertion that the PM-9 is the more skillful gun than the MP7 because utilizing it requires the user to be more mindful of engagement control to be perfectly valid. That's fine.

However, beyond that facet, the claim that the PM-9 requires more aiming skill strikes me as dubious at best because of the base nature of CoD's gameplay mechanics. Sure, for a player who can't hit the broadside of a barn, the MP7 is far and away the better option; however, between competent players, the major factor is chance-based because a significant portion of the PM-9's recoil is random, i.e. after a point, it doesn't matter how well a player can manage it because a certain percentage of his success is chance-based. Aim assist makes target acquisition a relatively simple proposition and techniques such as zombie-flicking further mitigate the role of aiming skill in kills achieved by aiming down the PM-9's sight... of course, the PM-9 pales in comparison to the MP7 at longer ranges, but this ties more into picking your battles.

Bottom line, you get two players of equal skill shooting at each other with an MP7 and a PM-9 in both guns' minimum damage range, and if the PM-9 guy gets the kill, it's purely because he got lucky. If the skill of each player is unknown, if the PM-9 player manages to consistently trounce the MP7 guy by keeping engagements within hipfire range or getting that critical first hit in more often, he's probably a more overall skillful player... on the other hand, what about a guy who gets higher scores with the PM-9 while tactical loitering or patrolling or getting the drop on otherwise unsuspecting players? It'd make little difference whether he had an MP7 or a PM-9 playing like that.

Summary of my stance: Guns themselves aren't nooby; only players are nooby. Some guns are certainly less balanced than others from a statistical standpoint, but unless the gun in question is actually overpowered, i.e. cannot be bested unless the opposing player also uses that gun barring an extreme difference in the actual skill requirement, the player's ability and knowledge completely eclipses time-to-kill differences which are typically fractions of a second.

Finally, I recognize that there is likely a difference in platform in play here, as the PC version of the game to my knowledge doesn't contain "features" like aim assist nor does Rapidfire confer nearly as much of a benefit to the MP7 on console as it does on PC.

Second thing I want to respond to is something Marvel4 said...

MW3 has obvious balance issues and it's boring when everyone uses the same gun.

MW3's weapon balance might not be as slick as MW2's, but it's not bad as long as you overlook secondaries. It's better than Blops in this regard. The majority of primaries are perfectly viable with few well-known exceptions... the ACR and MP7 are far from the end-all-be-all guns that some people claim they are.

[eLantern]

Apr 26, 2012 15:42:32 GMT -5 zeroix said:

There are two things I'd like to respond to. First is megaqwerty's assertion that the PM-9 takes more skill to use than the MP7. Just to make it perfectly clear where I stand and what my overall point is, I find mega's assertion that the PM-9 is the more skillful gun than the MP7 because utilizing it requires the user to be more mindful of engagement control to be perfectly valid. That's fine.

However, beyond that facet, the claim that the PM-9 requires more aiming skill strikes me as dubious at best because of the base nature of CoD's gameplay mechanics. Sure, for a player who can't hit the broadside of a barn, the MP7 is far and away the better option; however, between competent players, the major factor is chance-based because a significant portion of the PM-9's recoil is random, i.e. after a point, it doesn't matter how well a player can manage it because a certain percentage of his success is chance-based. Aim assist makes target acquisition a relatively simple proposition and techniques such as zombie-flicking further mitigate the role of aiming skill in kills achieved by aiming down the PM-9's sight... of course, the PM-9 pales in comparison to the MP7 at longer ranges, but this ties more into picking your battles.

Bottom line, you get two players of equal skill shooting at each other with an MP7 and a PM-9 in both guns' minimum damage range, and if the PM-9 guy gets the kill, it's purely because he got lucky. If the skill of each player is unknown, if the PM-9 player manages to consistently trounce the MP7 guy by keeping engagements within hipfire range or getting that critical first hit in more often, he's probably a more overall skillful player... on the other hand, what about a guy who gets higher scores with the PM-9 while tactical loitering or patrolling or getting the drop on otherwise unsuspecting players? It'd make little difference whether he had an MP7 or a PM-9 playing like that.

Summary of my stance: Guns themselves aren't nooby; only players are nooby. Some guns are certainly less balanced than others from a statistical standpoint, but unless the gun in question is actually overpowered, i.e. cannot be bested unless the opposing player also uses that gun barring an extreme difference in the actual skill requirement, the player's ability and knowledge completely eclipses time-to-kill differences which are typically fractions of a second.

Finally, I recognize that there is likely a difference in platform in play here, as the PC version of the game to my knowledge doesn't contain "features" like aim assist nor does Rapidfire confer nearly as much of a benefit to the MP7 on console as it does on PC.

Second thing I want to respond to is something Marvel4 said...

MW3 has obvious balance issues and it's boring when everyone uses the same gun.

MW3's weapon balance might not be as slick as MW2's, but it's not bad as long as you overlook secondaries. It's better than Blops in this regard. The majority of primaries are perfectly viable with few well-known exceptions... the ACR and MP7 are far from the end-all-be-all guns that some people claim they are.

Fully agree.

To extract a statement you made, "The majority of primaries are perfectly viable with few well-known exceptions", I would like to ask whether you're referring to current weapons that could use just some minor tweaking or are you referring to much bigger changes and if so, what weapons?

I would say that I'm not sure of the niche the PKP LMG is suppose to play within the LMG class or game for that matter and therefore could use a tweaking, but I've never really put any time into thinking about what that change should be. Also, what is the niche of the MP412 handgun and L118A sniper rifle? They are similar designs to two other weapons, but they're outclassed in every important measurable aspect of their design in comparison to their clone, so what was the developers thinking with them... they have no niche to differentiate themselves from their clone in order to give them a purpose, unless their purpose was simply to be a handicap weapon.

[malgato]

I wonder if some of the "clone" guns are just meant to be differentiated by early level accessibility (training wheels) vs. slightly improved upper level (real bike) versions. Like CM vs. AK. Just a random thought without any other examples developed for support nor any data as evidence...

[cmck]

The PKP has a niche and it was my first gold lmg after the patch. It has very good irons and recoil with grip. The L86 is best with Thermal, the M60 is meant for closer range to use the two hit kill, and the PKP doesn't need Thermal at long range so Assassin won't bother you. I haven't used the Mk46 or the MG36 so I don't know how those stack up, but the min on the Mk46 doesn't let you kill in two headshots at range. Not much of a niche, but the PKP is my favorite.

[Marvel4]

The PKP has really bad recoil and I found Thermal and Grip help. But then it's still just a bad AR with a big magazine.

[eLantern]

Apr 26, 2012 16:58:28 GMT -5 cmck said:

The PKP has a niche... It has very good irons and recoil with grip.

The Foregrip, which correct me if I'm wrong, affects only ViewKick (not GunKick) at a specific percentage (can't remember what that percentage is, but the Kick Proficiency reduces both ViewKick & GunKick by some lesser percentage for both I believe) and therefore may actually reduce a weapon's recoil to greater effect if its overall recoil was made up of mostly ViewKick. I believe the two LMGs which have high GunKick values are the L86 LSW and MG36 (or was it the MK46?). Anyways, as I understand it, discovering whether or not a gun has any significant amount of GunKick in its overall recoil is done by equipping it with the Thermal Scope, which removes the GunKick. So, if the PKP shows little signs of lessened recoil with the Thermal Scope, that would imply, per my previous reasoning, that the Foregrip would have a much greater affect on it's overall recoil then it would have on say the L86 LSW, right?

To get back to your point...
The niche the PKP plays is that it receives a huge recoil reducing effect from the Foregrip and since its not in dire need of a sight attachment for visual clarity this opens the weapon up to make good use of other Proficiencies and perhaps another attachment like the Silencer when using the Attachment Proficiency. Is this in depth assumption of what you were getting at for the PKP's niche, correct?

[cmck]

Pretty much. I use it with silencer and grip. I can't change either without making it feel worse to me. Grip is a huge difference on it. I'm not sure if it does more than average, but I like its accuracy at range. The gun doesn't kick too much and the muzzle flash is removed. The L86 feels much better with themal instead of suppressor+grip, so thats why I consider it a niche.

[zeroix]

eLantern

The "few well-known exceptions" in my mind were in reference to the two pump and one lever-action shotgun in the game. I'll readily admit to being biased here, but I first and foremost see no practical reason to use a pump or lever action shotgun in a Call of Duty game if it's not on a similar level to the MW2 incarnation of the SPAS-12, especially considering 1) the Striker in MW3 is almost identical to its MW2 incarnation and 2) the USAS, which is capable of semi and fully automatic fire, has extremely similiar (or superior depending on the configuration) range and damage.

Second, not only do these shotguns fail to meet what I feel to be a necessary standard of performance for practical use, but there's just something off about them. I get hitmarkers at ranges where I get one-shot kills 100% of the time in Private Matches enough to shake my faith in the reliability of these weapons. I have no explanation for this behavior other than it being latency related. My best guest is that according to the host, my shot was not as accurately placed as it appeared on my side.

That said... under ideal or near-ideal circumstances these guns can pull of some pretty amazing feeds and of course they have a certain "cool" factor. (Presently, I'm thinking the KSG might have some serious potential, a lot more than I originally thought it did. I'm getting myself into immediately pressing X to reload then sprint-canceling every pump. If KSG + Damage + Dead Silence can get OSKs out to at least 12-14m, it could be fun and effective...)

[wwa]

IW strategy was to create a game attractive for less and high experienced FPS players. MW was supposed to be easy to play, but hard to master. And they did it.

There are guns that are easier to use, just fire & forget, spray & pray (ACR6.8, M4A1, MP7, FMG9 Akimbo etc.) and guns which require more accuracy, better reflex, more patience, more steadiness and practice (Dragunov, MK14, CM901, M16, UMP45, throwing knife, tac. knife etc.), usually regarded by less experienced players as „outclassed” or „useless”.
We can discuss where is the thin line between those groups.

It is not surprising, that players using weapons from the first group are publicly despised, called noobs etc., while players using weapons from the second group face a wall of silence - it is a pure consequence of IW/Activision strategy and human nature.

Experienced player can argue that uses ACR6.8 only to perform at highest level to smash the opponents, but should not be surprised if being called „noob”.
There are cheap kills possible, it is a part of the game, IW wanted cheap kills.

It is also a part of human nature to „deny” the facts or „rationalize” poor decisions.

TL;DR:
ACR6.8, MP7 etc. are for noobs due to IW decision and you behave like a noob using them, regardless your skills.
If you Foxtrot a sheep in the ass do not be surprised if called a sheep-Foxtrotter. Face the facts! :
- this is a sheep (not Scarlett Johanson) and this is your cock, doo-doo everywhere around; at the moment noone cares how pretty your girlfriend is.

[zeroix]

ACR6.8, MP7 etc. are for noobs due to IW decision and you behave like a noob using them, regardless your skills.

Dragunov and M16 were intended for experienced players? Please. Those guns exist in their current state because of oversight on IW's part. The only intentional aspect of such a design choice was that balancing all the weapons is/was never at the top of IW's to-do list.

If that were IW's actual strategy for anything but Strike Packages, it was a terrible one. The M16, for example, isn't hard to master; it's just flat-out worse than the Type in every significant way.

[iw5000]

Apr 26, 2012 15:42:32 GMT -5 zeroix said:

Summary of my stance: Guns themselves aren't nooby; only players are nooby. Some guns are certainly less balanced than others from a statistical standpoint, but unless the gun in question is actually overpowered, i.e. cannot be bested unless the opposing player also uses that gun barring an extreme difference in the actual skill requirement, the player's ability and knowledge completely eclipses time-to-kill differences which are typically fractions of a second.

Great post.

I agree entirely. This is a statistic obsessed ridden board. And with that, sometimes people get a tad bit worked up over what are relatively tiny percentage differences in guns. Fussing over pellet counts, 49 vs 45 damage stats, a range of 5 meters, etc....it goes overboard.

Like Zerox said.....PLAYER SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE complete eclipse these fractional differences in gun types.

[kirbyderby]

Apr 27, 2012 10:34:05 GMT -5 iw5000 said:

Apr 26, 2012 15:42:32 GMT -5 zeroix said:

Summary of my stance: Guns themselves aren't nooby; only players are nooby. Some guns are certainly less balanced than others from a statistical standpoint, but unless the gun in question is actually overpowered, i.e. cannot be bested unless the opposing player also uses that gun barring an extreme difference in the actual skill requirement, the player's ability and knowledge completely eclipses time-to-kill differences which are typically fractions of a second.

Great post.

I agree entirely. This is a statistic obsessed ridden board. And with that, sometimes people get a tad bit worked up over what are relatively tiny percentage differences in guns. Fussing over pellet counts, 49 vs 45 damage stats, a range of 5 meters, etc....it goes overboard.

Like Zerox said.....PLAYER SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE complete eclipse these fractional differences in gun types.

I think you're exaggerating just a bit there. Generally, we do not make a big deal of 49 vs 45 or even 34 damage (all are a 3SK), but we realise what difference it DOES make (penetration, shots to kill with SP, range drop, etc.). There is a difference in "fussing over" something like 5 more/less damage and realising that there IS a difference.

Something like pellet counts... that deserves fussing. With random dispersion, every little bit of consistency counts, and something like the ExMags glitch is a really big deal.

Yes, player skill and situational awareness is huge, and its importance is often overlooked. However, that doesn't make the weapon selection any less important. For instance, if a skilled, knowledgable player were using the M16 in MW3, they would probably play conservatively and avoid CQC situations where they would be at a significant disadvantage. However, the same player with an ACR could maintain those long distance engagements they played with the M16, while also having a decent CQC weapon that allows them to traverse the map aggressively as well. That's a huge advantage.

[ochooligan]

O your a pro if you only use the worst weapons in the game? lol The striker is a noob weapon, huge 1hk range and you done even have to aim the gosh darn golly gee whiz thing. The other weapons are just the best weapons in the game... of course alot of people are going to use them

[Killerpuffball]

May 4, 2012 21:28:31 GMT -5 ochooligan said:

O your a pro if you only use the worst weapons in the game? lol The striker is a noob weapon, huge 1hk range and you done even have to aim the gosh darn golly gee whiz thing. The other weapons are just the best weapons in the game... of course alot of people are going to use them

Striker is a n00b weapon, eh?

It deals 25-15x6 damage per shell, or you can look at it like this:
150-90 per shell

This means that 4 out of 6 pellets need to hit the foe in order to kill him.

n00B weapon?
Try again.

[-3055-]

AK-47 is amazing in hc s&d:

1. clear iron sights. just might be one of my favorite AR irons.

2. minimal view obstruction with a hbs when ads.

3. high damage, so good for wallbanging

4. good range.

[Megaqwerty]

May 5, 2012 0:27:54 GMT -5 Killerpuffball said:

Striker is a n00b weapon, eh?

Huge magazine, high rate of fire (for a shotgun), and reliable OSKs with great possibility for follow up shots if need be.

The USAS is statistically better but the Striker is much more useable and thus qualifies as a noob weapon.

With Damage, the Striker needs 50%-83% of its pellets to connect, which is very possible given its fire rate. Although its TTK falls behind all non-shotguns (save bolts) if the first shot fails to kill, shotguns cause high flinch and the Striker is very spammable.

[Killerpuffball]

May 5, 2012 2:39:49 GMT -5 Megaqwerty said:

May 5, 2012 0:27:54 GMT -5 Killerpuffball said:

Striker is a n00b weapon, eh?

Huge magazine, high rate of fire (for a shotgun), and reliable OSKs with great possibility for follow up shots if need be.

The USAS is statistically better but the Striker is much more useable and thus qualifies as a noob weapon.

With Damage, the Striker needs 50%-83% of its pellets to connect, which is very possible given its fire rate. Although its TTK falls behind all non-shotguns (save bolts) if the first shot fails to kill, shotguns cause high flinch and the Striker is very spammable.

That is exactly what I am looking for. What I questioned was not his statement, but rather his lack of reason

[wwa]

Question 1:
- I am a newb, what gun would u recommend?
- ACR or MP7.

Question 2:
- Is ACR or MP7 a noob weapon?
- No, ofc not!

LOL.

[LegitBeastin']

^This

[zeroix]

May 5, 2012 5:25:37 GMT -5 wwa said:

Question 1:
- I am a newb, what gun would u recommend?
- ACR or MP7.

Question 2:
- Is ACR or MP7 a noob weapon?
- No, ofc not!

LOL.

I'm guessing this statement was intended to use humor in order to illustrate your stance more than to contribute a meaningful point to this discussion, but you are implying 1) that a weapon separated from others in its group by tenths of a second or less is a "noob gun," and by virtue of that implication also implying 2) an advanced player using such a gun is in fact exhibiting a "noobish" tendency, quite possibly making him a noob.

Hmm, sounds just like whining to me, and besides, it's not so simple. It's like me saying snipers are for bad kids not because I have a statistical argument but because a lot of snipers are terrible railgunners. Losing a game of S&D cause some kid was going for montage clips doesn't magically turn sniper rifles into terrible weapons just like the fact that they can kill in a single bullet doesn't magically make them overpowered. Players aren't guns and vice versa.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... "Noob guns" in CoD are by large just a way for players to pin their deaths on something other than themselves.

[LegitBeastin']

zeroix Go use a 20 round SMG(No Ghost or Suppressors) for 2 hours on BLOPS and tell me you didn't lose any gun fights simply because you're opponent had a 3HK SMG or rifle.

[zeroix]

LegitBeastin'

Even assuming your scenario is accurate, that in no way proves the 3HK SMGs or rifles are "noob guns," for one, and for two, the gap between the 20 round SMGs and other SMGs/ARs is much smaller than that between pistols, for example. Besides, even if I have to use the PM63, I'll still outscore most players using superior weapons with relative ease... because they're less experienced players than I.

Last time I played Blops (couple weeks ago), I had three 40+ kill games with nothing but the Ballistic Knife. The reason for that was me (the player) knowing how to use my weapon and employing it in a fashion that was beyond that of my (admittedly terrible) opponents. Nowhere in this is are there "noob" or "expert" guns. Just good guns, bad guns, noob players, and expert ones.

Btw I love your new avatar, lol.

[LegitBeastin']

zeroix What I'm trying to say is that regardless of skill level, class set-ups will effect performance for better or worse.