|
Post by osvald2020 on Feb 3, 2014 15:34:10 GMT -5
As all of you know there was a patch on 1/28/2014 that buffed and nerfed some weapons and equipment. One of these changes was the buff of the MSBS. The new MSBS has shorter burst-delay than the old one. Before all the patches many thought the MSBS was very good and also some said it was OP. I personally thought it was quite bad because i play on PC where most players kill very quickly and the long burst-delay was usually detrimental if you didn't kill with the first burst. Well, then it got nerfed(12/12/2013) and got 0.8x multipliers to the limbs(i think, not sure) which made it a two hit kill to the chest, stomach, neck and head areas. It also had a slight reduction in range and ROF.
Now when it was again buffed i wanted to try it out and played a game of TDM. My first impressions of the weapon was: WOW! This is so much more reliable and consistent than the first version of the gun. The first life of the game i went on a 15 kill-streak and ended up with 29-2, not exceptionally good but not bad either. I think the decreased burst-delay weighs over the "negative" multipliers because if you miss your first burst you usually have time to fire another. This makes it also much better against groups of enemies.
Overall i think it's much more reliable than at launch and i recommend everybody tries it out.
The class i was using was RDS and grip, dead silence, stalker, quickdraw, focus and ready up + specialist, as always.
And please correct me if my facts were wrong or if i forgot to mention anything and write your opinions about the gun.
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Feb 3, 2014 17:21:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegentleman on Feb 3, 2014 17:33:58 GMT -5
I keep going back to the MSBS like a battered housewife and I have hot and cold streaks with it. I appreciate the new, shortened burst delay, but in truth it doesn't make too much of a difference. A broadside shot at a running target is probably going to nick the arms or legs, so you don't benefit from the chest multiplier. If they're facing you head-on, you need to be A) inside the 2hk range in the first place, and B) one full burst probably would have dropped them anyway.
Where the MSBS really struggles is at distance. If you're fighting a person who's partially concealed, the upward recoil means that you might land one hit out of the burst. I've often needed 5 bursts to put someone down at the MSBS's max range, which seems painfully short even with the muzzle break. Additionally, the irons really beg for some kind of optic.
Looking back, whenever I've done well with it, it's been because the people I've been playing against have been terrible. The areas where the MSBS would shine seem tremendously situational and I've never been able to achieve what the gun seems capable of in potential. I've found that if you need more than one burst, you were better off using just about any other AR. It's a very, very far cry from the patched MW3 M16, a gun I really started to enjoy using.
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Feb 3, 2014 18:06:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by -3055- on Feb 3, 2014 18:42:40 GMT -5
^ aka too slow.
The MSBS is still bad. It ain't no M8A1 in terms of burst delay.
|
|
egumption
True Bro
"...I don't like the colour."
Posts: 78
|
Post by egumption on Feb 3, 2014 19:43:57 GMT -5
Even post-patch, it's still iffy. I had a 20-5 game on Sovereign the first time I used the gun, thought it was OP again. Then the next few matches I was having a mighty struggle with it...I'd still hit ~1.25-1.5 in a game but I stopped counting the amount of times I would have been better off running an MTAR or another gun (and now the Maverick, to be honest). I think running Steady Aim really helps though, you really want that smaller hip spread since the MSBS is basically a glorified shotgun. Something like: MSBS w/ RDS + Muzzle Brake, running Stalker, Steady Aim, Ready Up, Focus, Dead Silence/Amplify, and an IED or C4 to round out the suite.
Really though, they need to rebuild the MSBS from the ground up. Make it, you know, like what every other burst weapon in the Call of Duty series has been.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 3, 2014 21:24:41 GMT -5
Even post-patch, it's still iffy. I had a 20-5 game on Sovereign the first time I used the gun, thought it was OP again. Then the next few matches I was having a mighty struggle with it...I'd still hit ~1.25-1.5 in a game but I stopped counting the amount of times I would have been better off running an MTAR or another gun (and now the Maverick, to be honest). I think running Steady Aim really helps though, you really want that smaller hip spread since the MSBS is basically a glorified shotgun. Something like: MSBS w/ RDS + Muzzle Brake, running Stalker, Steady Aim, Ready Up, Focus, Dead Silence/Amplify, and an IED or C4 to round out the suite. Really though, they need to rebuild the MSBS from the ground up. Make it, you know, like what every other burst weapon in the Call of Duty series has been. But then we might get another BO1 M16, BO2 pre patch SIG, MW3 Type95 (too late) or worse, prepatch MW3 M16. Burst guns so far have only had a 50% success rate.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Feb 3, 2014 21:30:11 GMT -5
NOU
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 3, 2014 22:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MastaQ on Feb 3, 2014 22:42:01 GMT -5
But then we might get another BO1 M16, BO2 pre patch SIG, MW3 Type95 (too late) or worse, prepatch MW3 M16. Burst guns so far have only had a 50% success rate. The BO1 M16 was an underrated gun, IMO. The G11 was vastly superior, but the M16 itself wasn't bad.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 3, 2014 23:08:31 GMT -5
It was underated because it was utterly outclassed
|
|
|
Post by UrbaneVirtuoso on Feb 3, 2014 23:12:00 GMT -5
Pretty much. My only reason to even use it at all were the underbarrels. The scopes, while increasing centerspeed, weren't things I'm fond with either because horribad ADS penalties.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 3, 2014 23:20:11 GMT -5
That and they were "dirty" and the terrible glint on the acog crimeny what was 3arc thinking
|
|
|
Post by -3055- on Feb 4, 2014 7:24:01 GMT -5
The m16 was a great HC gun though. Especially if you were an IR scope kinda guy.
|
|
|
Post by osvald2020 on Feb 4, 2014 7:55:59 GMT -5
At short to medium ranges where it's a 2 hit-kill it is pretty reliable. I used a grip to make it better at the long range engagements, which it actually is ok at since very other gun starts struggling at long ranges. I don't recommend it for a huge map like Stonehaven or Whiteout.
|
|
|
Post by osvald2020 on Feb 4, 2014 8:03:08 GMT -5
I thought the M16 was great. It had far superior range compared to the G11. It also had less recoil and option to use normal optics and suppressor. And as mentioned had recoil reduction with ACOG and IR which made it have almost no recoil. That or the G11 is how a Burst-fire weapon should be balanced: 3-4 hits to kill, low recoil and high firerate. 2 hit-kill makes it OP if you don't miss or if you hipfire and get lucky.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Feb 4, 2014 8:45:55 GMT -5
I thought the M16 was great. It had far superior range compared to the G11. It also had less recoil and option to use normal optics and suppressor. And as mentioned had recoil reduction with ACOG and IR which made it have almost no recoil. That or the G11 is how a Burst-fire weapon should be balanced: 3-4 hits to kill, low recoil and high firerate. 2 hit-kill makes it OP if you don't miss or if you hipfire and get lucky. In that case, the FAMAS and M93 Raffica were the most OP weapons ever.
|
|
|
Post by -3055- on Feb 4, 2014 8:54:10 GMT -5
I thought the M16 was great. It had far superior range compared to the G11. It also had less recoil and option to use normal optics and suppressor. And as mentioned had recoil reduction with ACOG and IR which made it have almost no recoil. That or the G11 is how a Burst-fire weapon should be balanced: 3-4 hits to kill, low recoil and high firerate. 2 hit-kill makes it OP if you don't miss or if you hipfire and get lucky. I'm pretty sure the G11 had like no recoil. The M16 on the other hand I remember having a decent amount of recoil without ACOG
|
|
|
Post by osvald2020 on Feb 4, 2014 9:03:38 GMT -5
I thought the M16 was great. It had far superior range compared to the G11. It also had less recoil and option to use normal optics and suppressor. And as mentioned had recoil reduction with ACOG and IR which made it have almost no recoil. That or the G11 is how a Burst-fire weapon should be balanced: 3-4 hits to kill, low recoil and high firerate. 2 hit-kill makes it OP if you don't miss or if you hipfire and get lucky. In that case, the FAMAS and M93 Raffica were the most OP weapons ever. I mean that Type95 from MW3 was OP. FAMAS was balanced because it wasn't the only weapon that could pull off a 2-hit kill with stopping power. In BO1 The burst guns were awesome at medium to long ranges but quite poor at close range, as they should be.
|
|
|
Post by osvald2020 on Feb 4, 2014 9:04:22 GMT -5
I thought the M16 was great. It had far superior range compared to the G11. It also had less recoil and option to use normal optics and suppressor. And as mentioned had recoil reduction with ACOG and IR which made it have almost no recoil. That or the G11 is how a Burst-fire weapon should be balanced: 3-4 hits to kill, low recoil and high firerate. 2 hit-kill makes it OP if you don't miss or if you hipfire and get lucky. I'm pretty sure the G11 had like no recoil. The M16 on the other hand I remember having a decent amount of recoil without ACOG Both had low but M16 felt lower. With ACOG it was for sure lower. Also M16 had symmetrical recoil whereas the G11 had up and to the right. IMO symmetrical is better for bursts since it's almost impossible to compensate for recoil on such guns.
|
|
egumption
True Bro
"...I don't like the colour."
Posts: 78
|
Post by egumption on Feb 4, 2014 9:08:13 GMT -5
FAMAS was too strong, but that's mostly thanks to Stopping Power (though in its defense not as OP as the UMP45). The Raff was good (probably top tier secondary) but SPAS kinda just laid a huge dump on every other secondary in existence after 1887s got nerfed.
Without Stopping Power around I don't think including a FAMAS-style gun in Ghosts would be OP. At range you'd need 2 bursts to kill.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Feb 4, 2014 10:24:01 GMT -5
I keep going back to the MSBS like a battered housewife Really? Not cool bro... you can come up with a better analogy.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Feb 4, 2014 10:50:47 GMT -5
Try flipping that around buddy $hit... fixed... after my cup of coffee I reread it
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 4, 2014 13:07:00 GMT -5
In that case, the FAMAS and M93 Raffica were the most OP weapons ever. I mean that Type95 from MW3 was OP. FAMAS was balanced because it wasn't the only weapon that could pull off a 2-hit kill with stopping power. In BO1 The burst guns were awesome at medium to long ranges but quite poor at close range, as they should be. By that logic RSASS was UBER OP, 1200 RPM 2HK? Type 95 was out classed by shotguns close range and any other gun medium to long range. Also M60 was OP, M14 was OP, .44 and deagle were OP, Dragunov, MSR, L118, AS50 and $0.50 were OP too right?
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Feb 4, 2014 13:41:02 GMT -5
Is FAD w/ semi-auto 1.5 x 34/25 = 51/37.5 dmg? 2-3HK? What is RoF cap then? 678 ok, tks, so firetime 'd be := 1.3 x 0.068s = 0.0884s, = 678rpm, well, okay, I see... it 'd be great somehow, macroed full auto FAD w/semi-auto attachment could fire at almost the same RoF as AK12, being 2-3HK vs 3-4HK ... and 42 vs 30 rd mag ... no, sorry, at 90-92 fps it does not work, I suppose fire cap is below 600 rpm and FAD still seems 3HK ... anyway, played some games ag bots, 1 vs 6, if anyone interested: 600 rpm 2-3HK FAD is worse than std version and costs 1 pt (read: my performance was worse).
|
|
|
Post by -3055- on Feb 4, 2014 13:41:06 GMT -5
I mean that Type95 from MW3 was OP. FAMAS was balanced because it wasn't the only weapon that could pull off a 2-hit kill with stopping power. In BO1 The burst guns were awesome at medium to long ranges but quite poor at close range, as they should be. By that logic RSASS was UBER OP, 1200 RPM 2HK? Type 95 was out classed by shotguns close range and any other gun medium to long range. Also M60 was OP, M14 was OP, .44 and deagle were OP, Dragunov, MSR, L118, AS50 and $0.50 were OP too right? Well MK-14 was borderline OP. No recoil and it was a 2 shot out to a ridiculous range. Especially if you had focus and rapid fire on that thing oh god. RSASS was unbelievable close range if you had the trigger finger for it.
|
|
|
Post by gioden on Feb 4, 2014 15:36:48 GMT -5
The MSBS was fine before the 12/12/13 nerf. IW could have adjusted the distance of the 2hk range a little (specifically the interaction with Muzzle Brake), but everything else they changed was completely unnecessary. I don't have extensive experience with non-IW games, but burst rifles have been done very well in past IW games. The interaction with Stopping Power is irrelevant because it changes how all guns behave when present.
The Type 95 in MW3 was not OP either. The M16 in MW3 was initially garbage but it was patched to be a good burst weapon. All burst weapons have an inherent disadvantage (burst delay) and were always given an advantage to make them worthwhile by rewarding accuracy.
The MSBS nerf from 12/12 catered to the usual whiners and now the weapon is not worth using. It is still usable, it just is not worth using if you are trying your best.
While I'm at it, the AK-12 nerf is total garbage, fu new IW!
|
|
|
Post by -3055- on Feb 4, 2014 21:12:01 GMT -5
The whole "burst guns reward accuracy" argument is tossed out the video as soon a burst gun has a decent amount of recoil. G11 and SWAT rewarded accuracy. The Type-95 is just a gimmicky gun, especially with rapid fire which was a very popular attachment on it. The only reason IW burst guns are popular is because they're two shot kills. It's more comparable to a shotgun than a marksman rifle.
Also, I barely notice a difference with the AK-12. If you're saying it's "total garbage" then I'm assuming you thought it was garbage to begin with or you're just imagining it.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Feb 5, 2014 1:03:45 GMT -5
Yeah, I haven't noticed any difference in AK handling.
|
|
|
Post by mw2baller on Feb 5, 2014 2:42:26 GMT -5
The whole "burst guns reward accuracy" argument is tossed out the video as soon a burst gun has a decent amount of recoil. G11 and SWAT rewarded accuracy. The Type-95 is just a gimmicky gun, especially with rapid fire which was a very popular attachment on it. The only reason IW burst guns are popular is because they're two shot kills. It's more comparable to a shotgun than a marksman rifle. Also, I barely notice a difference with the AK-12. If you're saying it's "total garbage" then I'm assuming you thought it was garbage to begin with or you're just imagining it. This. The MSBS is not a good gun. Unless you're already ADSed and shooting an exposed enemy within the 3hk range it is bad. Too much recoil for long range, hopeless in a 2v1, unforgiving, cannot ADS while shooting in CQC, and requires too much precision and recoil luck to tackle headglitchers. It's a hyper-specialized mid range AR, which is pointless since pretty much every AR except the ARX is very good at midrange.
|
|