|
Post by slobbergoat on May 23, 2011 18:14:11 GMT -5
Since I might finally unlock magnum ammo and ceramic armor sometime next month (and finally be on even footing with all the other players that are allowed to kill me faster or die slower due to their mammoth effort of having played the game longer):
Which weapons benefit the most and least respectively from magnum ammo? I'd like to know when to choose armor instead. Since I don't know how magnum ammo works exactly (whether it's at all ranges or only effective ranges) I can't just wing it from the chart.
I have heard that the VSS in particular gets no real benefit from magnum ammo and is better combined with armor - is this true? And is there a definite advantage in using magnum ammo over slugs in shotguns or vice versa?
On that note, is there any point to using the M14 for assaulting as Recon as opposed to the SVU? It seems statistically they're pretty similar.
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on May 23, 2011 22:17:18 GMT -5
Body armor is statistically superior compared to magnum ammo in every way.
Not only can a body armor dude survive an additional 2 shots against those not using magnum, he can also survive a grenade to the feet,
|
|
|
Post by slobbergoat on May 23, 2011 22:48:55 GMT -5
I was kind of erring that way myself actually - it seems that a lot of my deaths come from spam / noobery related stuff (mostly explosives) but whenever I kill somebody I have typically overwhelmed them to enough of a degree that killing them faster wouldn't of made a difference.
Still need to level up two more times however, and it seems like even more than the regular 100% of enemies that kill me are running magnum ammo lately as if to just magnify how annoying it is that you need to have played the game for a relatively long time (unless you're maining medic, anyway) to unlock something that should be practically a first level unlock.
Also, can Den or anyone confirm as well as to whether magnum ammo and body armor cancel each other out code-wise like CoD or if they simply apply both the bonus and malus in that order when you're shot?
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 24, 2011 0:42:47 GMT -5
You have pros and cons with both. The cons are what you don't get for picking one instead of the other one. Body Armor = You need 2 more shots to get killed by non-Magnum users (this is true for most weapons). You need the same amount of bullets to get killed by Magnum users. You also have better defense against explosives. Magnum Ammo = You need 1 less shot to kill non-Body Armor users. You need the same amount of bullets to kill Body Armor users. I always thought Body Armor was superior in a certain way. You'll find yourself unable to kill someone from long ranges sometimes, because a bullet can be harder to land at that distance on moving targets (eventually you'll run out of ammo), but you'll have an edge both up close and when running for your life into cover. There are some weapon I prefer with Magnum though. The M16A2, because it becomes capable of killing with two bursts up close. The 40mm Shotgun and Pump Action Shotguns in general, because they need to be a 1HK in order to be effective. The REX, because it becomes a 2HK or even a 1HSK. Headshots multipliers could be crucial with some weapons if you learn to aim for the head. The Bolt Action Sniper Rifles, because I want to be sure to 1shot people up close even if they have Body Armor (I'm more of an aggressive Recon), but also for long-range sniping Magnum helps you finish enemies with less pistol bullets while you don't really need much health because it's likely that the enemy isn't even aware of your position until it's too late. It also depends upon your game style. If you're more of a flanker, you could find Magnum more useful when taking out multiple enemies from behind without them being able to react, while in face-to-face encounters I like Body Armor better. Not to mention the fact that Marksman is a great choice imho with certain weapons like SMGs, the F2000 or the G3, and Danger Close (never remember the BF name of this perk) is valuable if you don't use AT-mines on your Engi. Sorry for any English mistake, I'm Italian
|
|
|
Post by ][nquisitor Mateo on May 24, 2011 1:35:58 GMT -5
Magnum is always better.
Enemies can't shoot you or throw grenades if they are dead.
Also, with body armor, you are shooting longer to get a kill, more time shooting means more time to get shot, so it nullifies its own effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by field on May 24, 2011 2:35:04 GMT -5
Also, with body armor, you are shooting longer to get a kill, more time shooting means more time to get shot, so it nullifies its own effectiveness. Im agreeable with this. The less time you take to kill an enemy the less time you give enemies to shoot at you.
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on May 24, 2011 2:44:26 GMT -5
Also, with body armor, you are shooting longer to get a kill, more time shooting means more time to get shot, so it nullifies its own effectiveness. Im agreeable with this. The less time you take to kill an enemy the less time you give enemies to shoot at you. Unfortunately, this isn't CoD. There isn't a lot of situations where you get direct line of sight over the enemy. People tend to exploit irregular terrains by lobbing grenades over them with ammo boxes by their side. Even IF you do get a direct line of sight on your foe, chances are that they're behind some sort of cover (other than wooden materials, wallbanging doesn't exist in BC2). Also, magnum doesn't protect you from vehicles. You'd be lucky if you could even put a dent onto a tank with bullets.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 24, 2011 3:07:45 GMT -5
Magnum is always better. Enemies can't shoot you or throw grenades if they are dead. Also, with body armor, you are shooting longer to get a kill, more time shooting means more time to get shot, so it nullifies its own effectiveness. No offense but I find this to be a silly motivation. I could as well say "You can't shoot the enemy if you're dead". You are shooting longer to get a kill, but the enemy is also doing it. It nullifies its own effectiveness just as much as Magnum Ammo nullifies its own one by dying faster... With the difference that in many cases Magnum will give you an advantage of 1 bullet, where Armor gives you an advantage of 2. This advantages are negated when one has Armor and the other has Magnum (so here it's a tie), but it makes Armor better than Magnum against any other 2nd Perk. This is the math, of course a skilled player will be good even without using any 2nd Perk, but we're not talking about that. Magnum vs Armor = Tie Magnum vs Others = 1 bullet advantage Armor vs Others = 2 bullets advantage Magnum is only better for certain weapons like those capable of 1 Shot Kill and other particular cases like those I already mentioned above... We could also add the fact that Magnum is better when shooting at someone with a Medikit on his feet (expecially if it has the 2nd Perk that increases the speed of the healing). Imho!
|
|
|
Post by raxcoswell on May 24, 2011 8:30:17 GMT -5
Straight comparisons miss a lot of the picture. Maybe armor is always better if the game consisted of spawning directly infront of someone and both shooting at each other without missing. Luckily, that isn't what the game is.
Broadly speaking, if your KD is negative you'd probably get more use out of body armour and if its positive then you'd probably get more use out of magnum.
Mateo's comments sound pithy but there's an important notion to grasp. If you're shooting other people much more than you're getting shot, taking armour is folly. Varies even beyond that though. If you find yourself failing to kill guys because they just manage to escape, whereas you always die through some blatantly foolish move, magnum. If you kill everyone from behind or unawares, but get shot at running from building to building, armour. The statistical difference between the two is very minor, but the amount their bonus will benefit you depending on how you play is much more pronounced.
For the record I'm all magnum all the time.
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on May 24, 2011 8:37:09 GMT -5
Straight comparisons miss a lot of the picture. Maybe armor is always better if the game consisted of spawning directly infront of someone and both shooting at each other without missing. Luckily, that isn't what the game is. Broadly speaking, if your KD is negative you'd probably get more use out of body armour and if its positive then you'd probably get more use out of magnum. Mateo's comments sound pithy but there's an important notion to grasp. If you're shooting other people much more than you're getting shot, taking armour is folly. Varies even beyond that though. If you find yourself failing to kill guys because they just manage to escape, whereas you always die through some blatantly foolish move, magnum. If you kill everyone from behind or unawares, but get shot at running from building to building, armour. The statistical difference between the two is very minor, but the amount their bonus will benefit you depending on how you play is much more pronounced. For the record I'm all magnum all the time. As for me, I'm more to team-support and less on shooting other people. And I always get blown to bits by explosives (and vehicles), so body armor is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by klokateer on May 24, 2011 8:53:45 GMT -5
no offense, but most everyone on any BC2 forums look at these two specs (and most specs) in the wrong light.
Magnum and Body armor are PLAYSTYLE choices, neither are better or worse than each other. In differing situations, they each have benefits and draw backs.
For example: If you're the kind of player who likes to hang back, away from the front line with your gun equipped with a 4x scope... Magnum may suit you better. You'll be giving out the damage rather than receiving it.
If you're the kind of player who likes to ride the front line, Body armor is likely going to be very useful in helping you withstand stray bullets and explosives spam.
If you're a flanker, either spec will do nicely depending on your weapon choice and reflexes. Someone with faster reflexes might favor Magnum while someone with slower might enjoy Body armor.
|
|
phale
True Bro
Posts: 635
|
Post by phale on May 24, 2011 14:45:09 GMT -5
Here's my take on it, which kind of goes along with playstyle/shooting vs. getting shot:
Magnum for Assault and perhaps Recon, because your primary purpose is killing infantry (i.e. shooting).
Armor for Medic and Engineer, because killing infantry is not your primary goal. Armor will enhance survivability during important tasks such as reviving and repairing (i.e. getting shot at). Engineers, especially, often fight tanks, and Armor provides a critical explosive defense while Magnum doesn't help at all. (Exception being AT mine engies, who can forget about tanks and fight infantry.) The longer a medic can stay alive, the more time he can be healing and reviving. Plus, LMGs have generous ammo supply, so running out of ammo is not so much of a problem.
As a support player, I generally run Body Armor so I can help my teammates as much as possible. Of course, my K/D is always terrible so don't take too much from me!
|
|
|
Post by kirbyderby on May 24, 2011 16:00:20 GMT -5
Honestly Magnum doesn't seem that beneficial to snipers, namely the bolt actions. Yes, it increases the 1SK range, but if you want close quarters effectiveness you can always use a VSS... or use your fave pistol and just go for the 1-2 kill, 1943 style.
Also, as a true 'recon' and not just another sniper, it'd probably just be better to use the 12x scope and the automatic spot thingamajigger.
I guess it's alright for the semi-autos though. (Or Touch Football if you really wanna be that guy)
|
|
|
Post by slobbergoat on May 24, 2011 16:30:06 GMT -5
Since I unlocked the VSS I've been playing overwatch with it - hanging back just far enough not to be the 'first target' in a fight as it were, without even coming close to being the standard rectard (rectom?) lobbing from one spawn to the other.
Basically, I make sure as best I can that nobody manages to close in on the MCOM or defuse a bomb on one, without being blatant about where I'm positioned.
However, it seems like the VSS would not benefit much from magnum ammo in this application because the only difference it would make is one less shot to kill at distances I only would be using it to troll recons with their GOL magnums anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ][nquisitor Mateo on May 24, 2011 19:00:50 GMT -5
Mateo's comments sound pithy but there's an important notion to grasp. If you're shooting other people much more than you're getting shot, taking armour is folly. This is it basically, same as COD, if you shoot more than you get shot, Stopping Power, if you get shot more than you shoot, you suck. Fortunately, this isn't COD, so armor is also good for support roles where armor is more important that shooting things with your bullet gun. Of course, then it isn't competing with Magnum anymore, it's competing with Explosive upgrade or spotting scope or medpack heal. But in a straight up fight, Magnum wins hands down.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 25, 2011 6:17:04 GMT -5
But in a straight up fight, Magnum wins hands down. NO.Don't mean to harass you or something, but I don't understand why you don't get this simple math. I already showed you that the straight up fight is the exact place where Magnum is inferior to Body Armor. Magnum vs Armor = Tie Magnum vs Others = 1 bullet advantage Armor vs Others = 2 bullets advantage I won't stress this any longer, but the statement "Magnum wins hand down in a straight up fight" is simply false. This is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by rubionubio on May 25, 2011 12:00:55 GMT -5
I say screw 'em both! But seriously, if I'm playing Engineer I'm using Ex. MK. II and if I'm rolling as a Medic I'm using ub3r-h34lz because those things are my job (yes there are corner cases and exceptions, but those are the rules for me).
When playing VSS Recon (read: Assault w/ motion mines + C4) I use Magnum, for reasons explained in the VSS thread. Every other bolt-action I leave Magnum off of and if I'm going to be a classic "sniper" than I'll take the Spotting Scope. It helps immensely in some maps with a lot of cover/foliage because it will frequently spot dudes that I literally cannot see behind vegetation. Also, it's sort of my "job" to be a "recon", and this, along with motion mines, provides an excellent picture of where bad-dudes are.
With Assault... Yea. I don't "get" MMN. It doesn't seem to really help me much, if at all. Maybe I'm not using it correctly, or with good fire discipline it's unnecessary or something, but I really don't see the point. Can someone give me a good example of a gun/situation to try this on so that I can actually "see" the point? Like, crouching/not-crouched, ADS/Not-ADS'd, hipfire, wtf? So yea, with Assault I'll usually take Magnum because killing infantry is my job.
|
|
|
Post by kirbyderby on May 25, 2011 14:11:16 GMT -5
I say screw 'em both! But seriously, if I'm playing Engineer I'm using Ex. MK. II and if I'm rolling as a Medic I'm using ub3r-h34lz because those things are my job (yes there are corner cases and exceptions, but those are the rules for me). When playing VSS Recon (read: Assault w/ motion mines + C4) I use Magnum, for reasons explained in the VSS thread. Every other bolt-action I leave Magnum off of and if I'm going to be a classic "sniper" than I'll take the Spotting Scope. It helps immensely in some maps with a lot of cover/foliage because it will frequently spot dudes that I literally cannot see behind vegetation. Also, it's sort of my "job" to be a "recon", and this, along with motion mines, provides an excellent picture of where bad-dudes are. With Assault... Yea. I don't "get" MMN. It doesn't seem to really help me much, if at all. Maybe I'm not using it correctly, or with good fire discipline it's unnecessary or something, but I really don't see the point. Can someone give me a good example of a gun/situation to try this on so that I can actually "see" the point? Like, crouching/not-crouched, ADS/Not-ADS'd, hipfire, wtf? So yea, with Assault I'll usually take Magnum because killing infantry is my job. I think MMN was discussed in another thread, but I don't remember which... Basically, you're correct. For ARs, the 'ideal firetime', where there is no cone of inaccuracy, did not change (i think the AN94 was the exception). The difference was when spraying at full-auto, the MMN weapon was much more accurate... (recoil was not affected) Assuming you're burst firing to counter recoil, MMN isn't too helpful. Though it's worth noting that it shrinks the F2000's initial spread as well, making it marginally more useful. EDIT: found it... denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general2&action=display&thread=2723
|
|
TheLegendaryJ
True Bro
If your reading this you don't need glasses...
Posts: 154
|
Post by TheLegendaryJ on May 25, 2011 14:12:31 GMT -5
With Assault... Yea. I don't "get" MMN. It doesn't seem to really help me much, if at all. Maybe I'm not using it correctly, or with good fire discipline it's unnecessary or something, but I really don't see the point. Can someone give me a good example of a gun/situation to try this on so that I can actually "see" the point? Like, crouching/not-crouched, ADS/Not-ADS'd, hipfire, wtf? So yea, with Assault I'll usually take Magnum because killing infantry is my job. It's for Assault Sniping or mindless rushing hipfire. Basically its a god send if you suck at aiming with any of the full automatics or you just want you peripheral vision the whole time. My two cents on this topic, the only reason I don't have Magnum on is if I'm; A: Not playing Engineer B: Using a Shotgun The reason I use it all the time is because... I dunno, I use it all the time for no reason and now I want to switch to see what gets me a better edge.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 25, 2011 15:41:40 GMT -5
With Assault... Yea. I don't "get" MMN. It doesn't seem to really help me much, if at all. You should try the F2000 with MMN. Wonderful full-auto hipfiring from close to medium ranges. It's a beast in certain maps and modes. I couple it with the Smoke nades!
|
|
|
Post by klokateer on May 25, 2011 16:30:45 GMT -5
With Assault... Yea. I don't "get" MMN. It doesn't seem to really help me much, if at all. You should try the F2000 with MMN. Wonderful full-auto hipfiring from close to medium ranges. It's a beast in certain maps and modes. I couple it with the Smoke nades! The F2000 is the most accurate AR in the game when hipfiring, on the move or standing still. Using MMN on the F2000, subjectively speaking, a complete waste of a spec slot.
|
|
TheLegendaryJ
True Bro
If your reading this you don't need glasses...
Posts: 154
|
Post by TheLegendaryJ on May 25, 2011 16:36:23 GMT -5
You should try the F2000 with MMN. Wonderful full-auto hipfiring from close to medium ranges. It's a beast in certain maps and modes. I couple it with the Smoke nades! The F2000 is the most accurate AR in the game when hipfiring, on the move or standing still. Using MMN on the F2000, subjectively speaking, a complete waste of a spec slot. Or use MMN on the PP2000 or UZI, don't need no more scopes now. Actually that's a bad idea, you need the extra Explosive Damage perk to REALLY kick some.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on May 25, 2011 16:58:36 GMT -5
The F2000 is the most accurate AR in the game when hipfiring, on the move or standing still. Using MMN on the F2000, subjectively speaking, a complete waste of a spec slot. Or use MMN on the PP2000 or UZI, don't need no more scopes now. Actually that's a bad idea, you need the extra Explosive Damage perk to REALLY kick some. I agree with klokateer when he basically says that the being the spread reduction a %, talking in absolute values the F2000 is the AR that has the worst benefit. But it's also the only one AR that is capable of medium-range hipfiring with MMN, while the other AR aren't. But basically yes, I agree that there are far more effective options: the MMN F2000 is just a lot of fun. MMN is a beast if you're using AT mines!
|
|
|
Post by kirbyderby on May 25, 2011 21:44:40 GMT -5
Effectiveness aside, it's worth noting the 9A SMG with MMN gets no spread, even when firing full-auto.
|
|
|
Post by Keralastic on May 26, 2011 0:21:00 GMT -5
I just realized that we kinda derailed the thread into a discussion on the philosophy of MGNM vs Body Armor, instead of trying to answer the original question.
But in my experience, MGNM is most beneficial for the following guns.
-AEK-971: It makes it a 6 shot kill at all ranges, which makes it a really good choice for long-range engagements.
-M16A2: Since it makes it a two-burst kill at any range.
-F2000: It has pretty crummy damage output otherwise, so it makes it another good choice for long-range engagements.
-PKM: It makes it a 5-shot kill up-close, and a 6-shot kill at long range. Considering you can usually land that many hits in a single burst with the PKM, it's extremely deadly.
-9A-91: Considering its small magazine size, good long-range damage, and high accuracy, I think MGNM suits the 9A-91 best out of the 20-damage SMGs, and makes it an absolute beast when hipfiring.
-PP2000: Since it removes its damage falloff, making it an 8-shot kill at all ranges, it benefits from it a lot more than it does from other Specializations.
-The T88 or SVU: Since it makes them a 3-shot kill at any range.
-Pump-Action Shotguns with Slugs: Since it greatly increases the one-bodyshot-kill range.
Those are all I can think of at the moment, but with everything else, it mostly boils down to preference, since they work pretty well with Body Armor too.
|
|
|
Post by klokateer on May 26, 2011 8:28:41 GMT -5
shotguns with buckshot are also good with Magnum, though I usually prefer Body armor.
A pump action requires 7 of the 12 pellets to make contact for a OHK. With magnum that becomes 6 pellets of 12. This means your OHK range is increased simply because less pellets must make contact.
Same with semi/full-auto shottys. Difference is they only push 6 pellets, so you can see that Magnum can turn a Saiga/USAS into a OHK gun instead of two if/when all pellets fired connect.
The difference in 1 shot to kill vs. 2 shots to kill when you're in a CQC situation can easily be life or death with these guns.
|
|
TheLegendaryJ
True Bro
If your reading this you don't need glasses...
Posts: 154
|
Post by TheLegendaryJ on May 26, 2011 13:16:39 GMT -5
shotguns with buckshot are also good with Magnum, though I usually prefer Body armor. A pump action requires 7 of the 12 pellets to make contact for a OHK. With magnum that becomes 6 pellets of 12. This means your OHK range is increased simply because less pellets must make contact. Same with semi/full-auto shottys. Difference is they only push 6 pellets, so you can see that Magnum can turn a Saiga/USAS into a OHK gun instead of two if/when all pellets fired connect. The difference in 1 shot to kill vs. 2 shots to kill when you're in a CQC situation can easily be life or death with these guns. The problem with that is your not able to turn your 6 shot capacity into 12. Auto-Shotties are very unpredictable weapons, you can have epic moments or crap moments. It all comes down to preference, if your not comfortable with your lethality as a player and need more room for error, get extra mag size, if you know what your doing and can get kills without wasting 5-6 shot, magnum. I never use magnum for Auto-Shotties, maybe because I don't use them much but I always got Extra Slug Ammo.
|
|