|
Post by robesh on Dec 6, 2009 1:28:34 GMT -5
Why does ttk mean nothing? If you have a faster ttk than umps (you do) then you win the fight. I said the reason why not is that you can't aim - you obviously shouldn't use it, because you can't even aim a Spas much less a FAMAS. For people who know how to aim (me and anyone else who puts some time in the game) the FAMAS or M16 are the -best- choice of rifle, although it still comes down to preference because mw2 is the same as cod4 in that you can do quite well with any weapon. Personally FAMAS is my second pick, after the FAL. The reason people use 3RB ARs: They don't have trigger control. I see it all too often; player sights in with AR, holds down trigger, misses, continues to spray, then finally dies. Wouldn't it be nice if they had some kind of training wheel to make them not miss as often? Enter the three round burst. What do you know? Now they can put that good aim to use and if they miss, they won't be completely fucked, they can just regroup and pull the trigger again. Just because your weapon is 3RB doesn't mean it takes more aiming skill. It's the same concept: Put sights on target and fire. It is just harder to 4 shot kill across the map than it is to 3 shot kill across the map, especially if you have harsh recoil. Therefor, it would in theory take more skill to kill across the map with M4, F2k or maybe even ACR. But it would also take less skill to kill people in close range with full-auto. Skill means nothing, especially in CoD where there are so many more factors that judge the outcome, and the point is what weapons are better, not what takes more skill. The magic thing about the ACR is that it is a laser, AND full auto AND has a high ROF. Its the best of the M4 and M16. And it completely shits on the M4 in all aspects. The M16 is better at range when you get the OBK. toysrme is so right: ACR>all
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 6, 2009 4:39:30 GMT -5
ACR<FAMAS/M16.
You say it has a high RoF and no recoil? It's funny because the burst rifles have a HIGHER rof, significantly better damage, and an irrelevant amount of recoil.
"But it's fully automatic!"
That's irrelevant if you have SKILL. The reason why the FAMAS/M16 takes skill to be good is you must hit with the first 3 rounds to make them good. Other rifles, you can afford to miss a round here or there and not have it affect you as much. If you miss a round with the famas/m16 it is going to affect your ttk a lot more than with the other rifles.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 6, 2009 5:24:16 GMT -5
If you want to make a game that will be pure skill then you remove all but 1 weapon, and make all things exactly equal and exactly even for both players. It will be boring as Sunday morning TV, but it will be pure skill. If you want your skill to get you the most kills in MW2 then use the weapons that get you the most kills and don't worry about the other weapons. If you want to show off how uber your skill is then pick a niche weapon (non AR, possibly non LMG) and proceed to still win and kill with it anyway. AR's are pretty good at everything and that's enough for even newbs to get kills vs even experienced players with niche weapons right in their niches. But if they had to go head to head in those situations every single time you wouldn't find them winning more than 50%, at least if the experienced players using niche weapons really know their niches. But just because you're decent with an AR doesn't mean you can pickup a sniper rifle and think you'll do okay. It's a different skill set, and you have to learn your weapon. A really dedicated SMG, or Sniper user will know how to avoid the majority of fights that do not favor their weapon, and how to win the majority of fights that do. If this is not you, then do not fear. There are AR's for that. This is actually a very common formula in balancing games. You have lots of niche classes each of which is the best at what it does, and then you have a few jack of all trades classes. The jack of all trades ones are much MUCH more noob friendly. Though this is less a skill thing and more a strategy one. High versatility requires less strategy than specialization. For strategy, it's hard to go wrong with The Art of War. It's a bit of a read, but even just browsing it piecemeal will be enlightening. www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.htmlAR's may rule now, but honestly the game is still new and there are still tons of new players that have never even played CoD running around spamming with AR's. We're still figuring out the stats on the guns. I'm still learning things about the maps. It's fresh. The specialist ranks have not really made their mark just yet, but they will. Anyway just because you are at your weapon's peak range does not confer you the full benefits of the weapon. An SMG user that stops moving to ADS at an AR user will find their advantage greatly reduced. A sniper who reveals himself and has to go 1 on 1 with an AR even at long range has arguably already screwed up. Yes, it's harder to use a weapon that is specialized for a certain job. But don't blame the game if some weapons just don't work for you. Yes the advantages may sometimes be small, but it's a niche and sheer random luck is also meant to be a factor. If IW made the specialized weapons completely outclass the AR's then the short range people would all run around indoors, long rangers would camp open ground, and the two groups would largely never fight each other or interact. The AR is a weapon you can take anywhere, which frankly means you're the best source of kills for all the specialized weapon users so long as they play smart. BTW If you want to make an AR sniper like then just tack on a thermal scope. You get sway, hold breath, and even longer ADS time. Yes I kill snipers with my FAMAS. In fact that's my preferred loadout on Wasteland, along with SP and a silencer since I don't take CB. It does very well against anybody that doesn't see it coming, but against even halfway decent snipers I can easily get raped unless I spot them first. (Which I should not unless they for some reason aren't using CB.) I use AR's for long range killing because I like fighting at long range, but have never gotten the hang of CoD sniping. I'm total shyte with the sniper rifles. I can even do decently at long range with my SCAR, and the AUG is great at it. But that's just trigger discipline firing in bursts, sometimes only firing 2 or even single shots at a time. Against other players that still don't do bursts well it works great. I can stare you down long range and even take a hit or two while I finish you off if you don't have discipline, and against another AR if it's not working out and I'm taking hits I can usually duck back behind my cover. If I try that against a competent sniper there are usually only two outcomes and the only real difference is whether or not he drops behind cover first before blowing my head off. But note, i said competent... There are plenty of easy snipers to kill, it's a heavily specialized class of weapons and there are far more people with aspirations of being good snipers than seem to have the discipline for the job. Does that mean it's a no skill game that I can kill snipers with my AR? feh... I could do that with an SMG if they're really slow. naw... It means there is more to the game than pure skill. There is discipline, strategy, tactics, experience, luck, patience, caution, risk management, and self control, among other things. These are all, (even luck) important factors to the game. Remember the primary purpose is to have fun, not to measure individual users relative skill levels firing unrealistic simulated weapons at virtual soldiers via their 2D TVs/Monitors. I can understand your frustration. I myself find SMG's, and Sniper Rifles almost impossible to actually use. But that's my problem. I'm not saying all the weapons are created equal, but for every weapon in the game somewhere out there is the perfect user who loves it to pieces, and can probably rape you with it. Also back on the FAMAS, it's actually not bad at all in close quarters... against another AR user. The TTK is great. With SP you don't even need the third bullet in the burst, it's more like insurance. Where it is not so great is against groups in CQC or against an SMG/Shotgun run and gunner. There are a lot of situations where if you miss your first burst, you're dead. But just because it can work well even at close range doesn't mean there aren't specialized weapons that do better. SMG and Shotgun mobility in particular, but even then you could also get your bum stabbed while trying to get your burst on target. And if you ADS you may find them strafing around you faster than you can turn.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 6, 2009 5:48:52 GMT -5
Missing with the FAMAS does in deed hurt, but learning to handle burst fire really isn't that complicated. You just use the weapon basically the same as you would a semi-automatic with a low ROF but high damage. In other words it's sort of a sniper-shotgun. Go just a bit too far out of range and it's hard to connect with all three bullets, otherwise put the cross hairs on target, squeeze, and make the bad people go away.
What hurts is missing a full burst. I don't sweat losing 1 shot out of my burst because all I have to do is put it back on target and as soon as I pull my trigger the first bullet (which is very very accurate) will do the deed. Missing a full burst on the other hand means you now have a full health guy staring down your sights with a full auto and no reason not to spray or burst at you. Pray for spray unless you're close.
Hence why I like my silencer. If by some chance I manage not to hit the guy at all he often doesn't even realize I was shooting at him. Though I do really try to avoid that. lol
BTW Honestly when it comes to the range thing what I do find a bit difficult is the primary/secondary combination options. In other words if your primary is long range specialized like with a sniper rifle you still have many rather decent short range secondaries to choose from.
If on the other hand you take an SMG for a primary you get kinda screwed on secondaries. Sure you can take a MP, but they're basically miniature SMG's with fewer attachments. You can take a shotgun but at anything beyond point blank range there's not much reason to switch to it. You could try pistols, but unless you are akimbo 0TTK'ing there again is not too much reason to switch from primary unless you ran out of ammo.
About the only thing I can think of to make your secondary much use to you is to either pack a launcher for birds or make it something even more specialized such as silenced so that you can switch to that when you really get the drop on someone without sacrificing full range on your SMG.
Dual Ranger's might be useful for high short range damage then use your primary more as a secondary for longer, almost medium ranges.
Dual 1887's would have the opposite problem... why would you ever switch back to your SMG except maybe, possibly, due to reload. SMG's don't swap as fast as pistols though so I don't know how many actual shots you could fire in the same amount of time it takes to reload dual 1887's.
I suppose in a pinch, with good aim, an RDS, and an enemy not actually shooting at you just yet, you could use pistols for longer range than your SMG, though really only against stationary targets.
Thumper could be useful, but the ammo is sooo limited.
I dunno. There are some interesting options, but unlike the sniper there don't seem to be any for really mitigating the SMG's main weakness.
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 6, 2009 7:50:08 GMT -5
SMGs typically DO have a close-range advantage. First, the obvious combat advantages. They have good max damages and/or RoFs, which is generally offset by bad min damages and big recoil at larger distances. The other obvious combat advantage is they ADS faster and they hipfire better. Then they have non-combat factors that contribute, such as full speed stealth ADS, better mobility, etc. Indeed, they do, but if you look at a game you'll find that in practice, AR users still have a very good chance to come out on top. The hipspread on an AR is still tight enough for close-combat damage and their decreased recoil makes combat at more than a few meters a lot better. Also, a lot of AR's even do more damage than SMG's up close - the UMP does 40 damage but has a very low rate of fire and the others do 30 damage - only the MP5K has 40 damage AND a high rate of fire. Mind you, even so, the differences in damage are not that high anyway - one missed shot from an SMG and an AR can easily come out on top. The ADS speed difference between the two is absolutely negligible and the difference in walk speed is not only very small but also relatively useless in combat. The difference in ADS move speed is much more pronounced but not that important either since if you want to throw attackers' aim off, you can still bunnyhop like a moron 5 meters into the air or you drop to the ground, and in the latter case ADS movement speed is undeniably completely irrelevant. If an AR user can get in but ONE shot, it's game over for the sniper. His view will kick away and he'll NEVER get in a shot that hits the opponent, much less in a fatal area. Therefore, if a sniper and an AR user spot eachother at the same time, I would definitely NOT call the sniper at a real advantage. If he wasn't peering through his scope at the time, the sniper would even be at a massive disadvantage because his scope time is so long, and then he'd still have to find his target again, and steady his aim, and then aim for him, etc. The AR guy just points and keeps the button depressed. The BB gun example is wrong because it's about a weapon that no-one uses. This is about weapons that EVERYONE uses. The class of weapons that is most powerful dictates the overall skill level to play the game. If snipers would be overpowered compared to the other weapons (because, let's say, all the other weapons deal 1 damage per shot), the game would be relatively difficult because people would need to learn how to snipe. In MW2, you don't need to learn anything. In addition, I've noticed it's actually the noobs who tend to lame OP weapons a lot more, and skilled players who go for the niche weapons such as sniper rifles and SMGs. I'm very much aware of the formula of the area of a circle , but the point is that both are simply quite tight, and, moreover, tight enough to be applicable at about the same ranges. Sure, an SMG user can use his hipfire successfully at one or two meters more range than an AR, but the difference is not that noticeable in game, and in addition, hipfire just isn't that good. ADS'ing ingame is a lot more effective at ranges more than just a few meters simply because you don't have a chance to miss. No, snipers NEED to hold their breath. Having to hold your breath is a disadvantage.TTK values are so ridiculously irrelevant here. The fact snipers rely on single shots is a massive disadvantage because it means you need a 100% hit rate to kill - worse, they only kill on certain parts of the body. If an AR user gets in the first shot, which is not at all unlikely, snipers' views get kicked all over the place and they NEVER will pull of a fatal shot. Therefore, TTK values are irrelevant here. It doesn't matter if all the AR's shot hit either: AR's have way too little recoil so as long as you keep aiming at your target more than enough shots will hit make make his reticle jump all over the place with no chance of a counterattack. You need less than one SCAR mag to kill someone like that on even very long-range contacts in full auto and the SCAR is relatively "recoil-heavy" so to speak (all other mainstream AR's have even less). Ghillies can be an advantage, this is true. But that says nothing at all about the quality of the weapon - besides, you'd need to be in an area that makes use of this. Outside of these, ghillies make people actually MORE conspicuous because when this Chewbacca-esque entity comes for you it's usually quite obvious . You obviously didn't get the point of my argument. My point was that the base sniper is an inferior long-range weapon compared to an AR. It's just the zoom on the scope that gives them their potential, not the single-fire high-damage bullets.
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Dec 6, 2009 12:17:22 GMT -5
ACR<FAMAS/M16. You say it has a high RoF and no recoil? It's funny because the burst rifles have a HIGHER rof, significantly better damage, and an irrelevant amount of recoil. "But it's fully automatic!" That's irrelevant if you have SKILL. The reason why the FAMAS/M16 takes skill to be good is you must hit with the first 3 rounds to make them good. Other rifles, you can afford to miss a round here or there and not have it affect you as much. If you miss a round with the famas/m16 it is going to affect your ttk a lot more than with the other rifles. So the FAM16 is better because it takes more skill to use? That means that the sniper rifles would be the best guns in the game because of their 0 ttk. Or would that make Dual magnums the best? It also has a faster ttk. Does that mean that the guy with Intervention and Akimbo mag's is so skillful because he can kill you in 0 seconds?! Skill =/= ttk. Skill =/= using a gun with a disadvantage. It might make you more skillful to use bad guns, but it isn't what people really care about. People care about how effective a gun is and that the gun in question makes their job easier. Just because your gun is harder to use effectively doesn't mean it is better.
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Dec 6, 2009 14:21:16 GMT -5
Sniper rifles are the best guns in the game given their TTK. Skill =/= TTK, but effectiveness = TTK. When comparing stats of guns, unless under ridiculous circumstances such as CQB sniping, I always compare things based on the metagame (highest level of play where all players are flawless). Example: In the metagame, the TAR makes the SCAR suck. Since I mostly play touch football, the TAR's recoil is a non-issue, meaning that it obviously smokes the SCAR. In manlycore however, the SCAR is much easier to use, but I still use the TAR because someone who is very good with the TAR will always beat someone who is very good with the SCAR.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Dec 6, 2009 20:56:47 GMT -5
Does that mean it's a no skill game that I can kill snipers with my AR? feh... I could do that with an SMG if they're really slow. naw... It means there is more to the game than pure skill. There is discipline, strategy, tactics, experience, luck, patience, caution, risk management, and self control, among other things. Every single one of the things you listed, with the exception of luck, falls under the umbrella of skill. Tactics is a skill, strategy is a skill, patience is a skill, caution is a skill, risk management is a skill, self control is a skill, discipline is a skill. I'd even argue that experience is a skill- or, rather, that "experience" is in itself nothing but a method by which we acquire skills such as "knowledge of the maps" and "knowledge of enemy tendencies". You're right that there's more to the game than pure skill. There's skill and there's luck. That's all there is to any game- skill and luck. The greater the amount of luck, the less the amount of skill. In the most extreme example, in a truly "skill-free game", the outcome would be 100% decided by luck and over a large enough run of simulations, everyone would walk out with exactly the same stats. You obviously didn't get the point of my argument. My point was that the base sniper is an inferior long-range weapon compared to an AR. It's just the zoom on the scope that gives them their potential, not the single-fire high-damage bullets. Actually, you obviously don't get the point of MY argument, but I'm sick of simply restating it over and over again. Balance != Skill, and vice versa.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 6, 2009 21:19:13 GMT -5
Wait... less skilled players are using the jack of all trades weapons because they have fewer weaknesses and the more highly specialized weapons have advantages but not really great advantages. What am I missing, that sounds exactly like how the weapons should work.
Yeah so you're SMG advantages in CQC won't ensure you get the kill against the AR guy. Answer, be more skilled. AR's aren't supposed to get completely owned by SMG's. They are supposed to have a slight disadvantage, which an SMG expert could use to get a few more kills on average in CQC. It also requires the SMG expert to become very proficient at avoiding situations where he looses his advantage.
As for the UMP's ROF it's slow for an SMG, but it is not slow for a high damage AR. It is slower than the TAR and comes pretty close to both the SCAR and AK, falling between them. The UMP's recoil is also very vertical which means you can either aim low or you can actually compensate by slowly aiming down as you burst. And since it is an SMG if ROF is what you care about slap on Rapid Fire, you can't do that with AR's. Conclusion, SMG's are specialized weapons with slender but real advantages in some situations and major weaknesses outside of the areas where they are proficient. Strategy, fight on your turf.
SMG vs AR users of equal skill level outside of CQC generally means certain death for SMG. Inside SMG user's area of expertise he should on average do better than the AR, but not always mow him down. That's how it's meant to be. If AR's were so completely outclassed by the specialized weapons they would leave AR users pretty much helpless unless they just happened to catch the specializers out of their element. But then the AR is the noob gun, it's supposed to be easier for new players to use everywhere.
So the problem with the specialized weapons isn't their performance, it's more a problem in keeping within the weapon's element and not getting in situations outside of it. Maybe you should drop a tactical insertion inside a building with lots of rooms and make the whole building your tactical loitering ground. Or just get better at using cover and avoiding firefights you can't win. It's not supposed to be easier, it's a niche for pro's.
Same with the sniper. Sniping is not JUST about range, it's about stealth. Sniping has never been about a strait up heads on 1 on 1. That's not how it's done IRL either. Sniping is about finding targets and hitting them at range before they even know you're there. Like I said, if the other guy spots you before you shoot him, or you miss and make him aware of you, as a sniper you have already failed. Neither AR's nor LMG's are supposed to be crap at long range. They can and will kill. But it's the sniper that can pop you before you even get a chance to do anything. With AR's and LMG's you generally have a few precious moments to respon. If you're a sniper and you and the AR guy see each other you need to do one of two things, get off the first shot, or get the feck out of his sights. You aren't supposed to sit there and try to man up while he unloads on you.
Sniping unlike other weapons is only fun for the sniper hence why other weapons actually have the advantage if you see each other at the same time. It's a game of he who see's first, lives. The difference is that if they spot you at range even if you don't see them once you take a hit you have a chance to get to cover, in the reverse the sniper rifles don't really give people that option unless they are very fast or very lucky.
Once again it's a specialized weapon class meant to be used with a specific strategy. Range is actually only one of the variables used to classify weapons. Try to use an AR with sniper strategy isn't going to work better than a sniper rifle, or even well unless it's a FAMAS or M16 IMO. (Mebbe ACR, don't have it yet.) Using a sniper rifle for AR strategy is just silly.
The other thing is this is also not a 1 on 1 game. In fact it's really more of a team game than pure death match even. So that AR guy going full auto at a sniper (which seems silly to me, you should burst fire at long range, you can kill in far less than half a clip) has just painted a big target on himself for all of the sniper's teammates... particularly other snipers. SMG users can lock down buildings while AR's, LMG's, patrol the more open areas and Snipers perform area denial and psychological warefare.
Besides, when it comes down to it... if you just can't make the specialized weapons work for you, then don't. *shrugs* There's nothing wrong with just using AR's. How can they be overpowered when they are themselves out performed. They are just more versatile. If you value versatility more than the admittedly meager advantages of the specialized weapons then don't use them. It's not like MW2 wouldn't still be fun if there were nothing but AR's for primary weapons. As is there is some variety, you just gotta know your stuff to use the other weapons.
I see nothing wrong with this.
If you want a game where pure skill will always decide every 1 on 1 fight then this is not your game and I don't want to play your game, because that would be the most unforgiving noob unfriendly game ever. It would take months for a new player to get even one kill. No thanks...
MW2 is not a "skill" test, it's a game. If you're getting owned by AR's you either aren't good enough with your weapon, are getting caught where you shouldn't be, or should just be using an AR yourself. I myself am shyte with the specialized weapons, but I own up to it rather than complaining that the AR's are overpowered and no skill.
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 6, 2009 22:55:13 GMT -5
No, it means that it is better if you HAVE skill. Here's something you don't seem to understand about balance discussions; balance discussions do not work judging with any skillgroup other than the top (metagame, as another person elaborated on). In the metagame,
FAM16 is the best because it has high damage, highest rof in the game, high accuracy, and assault rifle traits all in one. No other gun can even come close to this.
The reason it's not the only gun used in the game is because there is more than metagame. If you're not at metagame or an otherwise very high skill level, FAM16 becomes less useful than automatics because a mistake will cost you more.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 7, 2009 0:34:52 GMT -5
I'm nowhere near being in the really high skill groups, but the FAMAS is one gun I'm actually pretty good with. In fact it and the SCAR-H are my main guns, though I'm starting to like the AUG.
It's not just a question of what is best in absolute terms. None of the weapons really truly outclasses every other weapon in the game in every situation. And some of them just suit different styles. Just look at the Intervention vs Barret debate. They are certainly different in many ways except for damage and multipliers, but it turns out that they are approximately equivalent in sniping due to the Barret's recoil bringing it's practical ROF down close to parity. I think that the Barret offers a little more versatility, but still...
Plus, there's really not much point in assuming maximized skill levels for making comparisons and ignoring the lower skill levels. We don't have that kind of game. We have all sorts of skill levels, thankfully, and the game is actually designed to have weapons that are more forgiving for lower skill levels, while still offering experts to gain an advantage with more difficult to use weapons.
|
|
|
Post by robesh on Dec 7, 2009 1:22:49 GMT -5
No, it means that it is better if you HAVE skill. Here's something you don't seem to understand about balance discussions; balance discussions do not work judging with any skillgroup other than the top (metagame, as another person elaborated on). In the metagame, FAM16 is the best because it has high damage, highest rof in the game, high accuracy, and assault rifle traits all in one. No other gun can even come close to this. The reason it's not the only gun used in the game is because there is more than metagame. If you're not at metagame or an otherwise very high skill level, FAM16 becomes less useful than automatics because a mistake will cost you more. I'm not saying the FAM16's are bad (really the M16 is my favorite gun in the game), it's just that the other assault rifles were all GREATLY improved, while the FAM16 stayed at basically the same status as it was in CoD4. IMO, it is now balanced. My point was just that the FAM16 seem the same as they always were, while every other AR (besides the AK) has had a boost in effectiveness. Remember in CoD4 how the M4 had ridiculous sway? It was said that more sway would make it so it didn't outclass all the other AR's in CoD4. But now look at the ACR. No sway, less recoil than CoD4's M4, possibly higher ROF. Wouldn't that be OP? tl;dr version: In CoD4 the M4 was said to have huge amounts of idle because if it didn't, it would definitely be OP. Now in MW2, the FAM16 is practically the same as it was in MW1, while the M4/ACR now have no sway and probably less recoil. According to CoD4's balancing actions, that would make the ACR4 OP and I wanted to know if people think it is OP.
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 7, 2009 2:31:15 GMT -5
Wait... less skilled players are using the jack of all trades weapons because they have fewer weaknesses and the more highly specialized weapons have advantages but not really great advantages. What am I missing, that sounds exactly like how the weapons should work. Yeah so you're SMG advantages in CQC won't ensure you get the kill against the AR guy. Answer, be more skilled. AR's aren't supposed to get completely owned by SMG's. They are supposed to have a slight disadvantage, which an SMG expert could use to get a few more kills on average in CQC. It also requires the SMG expert to become very proficient at avoiding situations where he looses his advantage. So if you gain almost nothing by specialising, why do it?!Mind you, the community has already figured this out long ago, and that is why everybody and their dog uses assault rifles. As for the UMP's ROF it's slow for an SMG, but it is not slow for a high damage AR. It is slower than the TAR and comes pretty close to both the SCAR and AK, falling between them. The UMP's recoil is also very vertical which means you can either aim low or you can actually compensate by slowly aiming down as you burst. And since it is an SMG if ROF is what you care about slap on Rapid Fire, you can't do that with AR's. Conclusion, SMG's are specialized weapons with slender but real advantages in some situations and major weaknesses outside of the areas where they are proficient. Strategy, fight on your turf. Sorry mate, but there is just no sense in doing that to play economically. Why try and avoid most conflicts if you only get a sliver of an advantage in a few conflicts? That's throwing away at least over 75% of your combat potential for almost nothing. The only way this would work (and mind you, it SHOULD work like this) is if you gain a GOOD advantage, or conversely, if AR's would be so sodding powerful at ALL ranges. SMG vs AR users of equal skill level outside of CQC generally means certain death for SMG. Inside SMG user's area of expertise he should on average do better than the AR, but not always mow him down. That's how it's meant to be. If AR's were so completely outclassed by the specialized weapons they would leave AR users pretty much helpless unless they just happened to catch the specializers out of their element. But then the AR is the noob gun, it's supposed to be easier for new players to use everywhere. What is the problem with AR users having to try and engage enemies within their favoured range, which *should* be about medium range? Why do SMGs have to pick fights carefully and not ARs? Why does the game need to have guns that are overly powerful and are way too easy to use?! Why does everyone's grandmother need to be able to rack up a nuke? If you contest that with the current level of overpoweredness of assault rifles and their frankly idiotic ease of use, this game was not built for noobs, then I find that pretty disturbing. But really, what's wrong with players having to learn the game before being able to perform too well? What's wrong with making a game less than piss easy? So the problem with the specialized weapons isn't their performance, it's more a problem in keeping within the weapon's element and not getting in situations outside of it. Maybe you should drop a tactical insertion inside a building with lots of rooms and make the whole building your tactical loitering ground. Or just get better at using cover and avoiding firefights you can't win. It's not supposed to be easier, it's a niche for pro's. IT'S A NICHE FOR PROS. Yeah right. Because the Pro scene totally uses all weapons that are completely outclassed. Get your head out of the dark spot mate - in CoD 4, ALL pros were using either an AK-47 or the AK-74u, because these were the two most oeverpowered weapons in the game, the easiest to use, the ones with the least weaknesses and so on, and it will be EXACTLY the same here. Same with the sniper. Sniping is not JUST about range, it's about stealth. Sniping has never been about a strait up heads on 1 on 1. That's not how it's done IRL either. Sniping is about finding targets and hitting them at range before they even know you're there. Like I said, if the other guy spots you before you shoot him, or you miss and make him aware of you, as a sniper you have already failed. Neither AR's nor LMG's are supposed to be crap at long range. They can and will kill. But it's the sniper that can pop you before you even get a chance to do anything. With AR's and LMG's you generally have a few precious moments to respon. No, you don't. If the AR guys sees you first, you're dead, period. Fact. A sniper has no chance against anyone who saw them. This makes them severely underpowered in almost ALL of the game's combat situations. Sniping unlike other weapons is only fun for the sniper hence why other weapons actually have the advantage if you see each other at the same time. You have GOT to be joking me. Since when is it fun to get shot by an assault rifle but not by a sniper rifle? Moreover, since when does that make it acceptable to turn all sniper rifles into unusable dog crap compared to assault rifles? Try to use an AR with sniper strategy isn't going to work better than a sniper rifle, or even well unless it's a FAMAS or M16 IMO. (Mebbe ACR, don't have it yet.) Using a sniper rifle for AR strategy is just silly. There is no "AR strategy" atm because you don't have to consider anything when using an AR - and if M16s perform as well as snipers at long range and infinitely better at other ranges too, why ever bother with a sniper when you can use an M16? Don't say ghillie suit mate - a set of fur doesn't make your weapon itself any better. The other thing is this is also not a 1 on 1 game. In fact it's really more of a team game than pure death match even. So that AR guy going full auto at a sniper (which seems silly to me, you should burst fire at long range, you can kill in far less than half a clip) has just painted a big target on himself for all of the sniper's teammates...particularly other snipers. It may seem silly to you, but it works like never before, and paiting a target on yourself - who cares, you're going to pwn that at whatever range they engage you at regardless... particularly snipers. In team games, locking down buildings is now very difficult to maintain because of the also extremely overpowered skill tube (which, of course, is only available on assault rifles, what else), and psychological warfare must mean making opponents laugh to death because I can't figure out what else they could do to their opponents psychologically. What's RIGHT about people not using most of the game's stuff? When everybody uses the same stuff, the situation is called imbalanced - the game lacks balance. You can't possibly deny that the game would be a lot more fun if all weapons had, on average, an equal chance of winning? Now that's where I don't see anything wrong. What is wrong with making skill the determining factor in a game, rather than your choice of weapon (disregarding combat situations ofc)? Besides, your estimate of a game in which skill plays a role is grossly exaggerated. I'm very decent with the specialised weapons, but they just don't net me the same amount of kills as assault rifles, no matter how skillfully I use them. Going non-AR costs kills and I myself am abhorred into being pushed to have to choose a certain weapon just because without it I would by definition be outgunned. If I didn't have to leave for university I'd quote more but for now this will have to do.
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 7, 2009 7:19:46 GMT -5
Plus, there's really not much point in assuming maximized skill levels for making comparisons and ignoring the lower skill levels. We don't have that kind of game. We have all sorts of skill levels, thankfully, and the game is actually designed to have weapons that are more forgiving for lower skill levels, while still offering experts to gain an advantage with more difficult to use weapons. I don't mind that there are weapons that are easier to use than others, but making them blatantly overpowered is another thing altogether. There currently is no weapon that requires MORE skill than an assault rifle, but performs BETTER. All other weapons (except ofc some LMGs which I, out of laziness, tend to omit) are extremely underpowered in comparison. Yes, the ACR and M4 are extremely overpowered. The M4 has practically has zero recoil but a high rate of fire, and like all auto-AR's, way too tight crosshairs. And it reloads in 0.1 second too, otherwise it would be less than perfect in some area. The ACR is maybe even worse with not zero practical recoil but zero absolute recoil as well as all the other AR advantages. God, when I started the ACR challenges I was pretty much overwhelmed by the overpoweredness in my hands... FAMAS and M16 are also still just as overpowered as before, though I guess that one a relative scale, they are comparatively less overpowered compared to other assault rifles than before. They still absolutely trounce any non-AR opposition with enemies having no chance to come out on top though, of course.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 7, 2009 18:50:19 GMT -5
Snipers have an instant kill and at long ranges are easier to fire off accurately than ARs because they have a significant zoom. If a sniper manages to spot an AR user, there is literally no reason he shouldn't come out victorious barring a close range where aiming quickly is more difficult. not going to argue it, just say why you're wrong. If a sniper and an AR user see each other and NEITHER(or just the sniper) is lined up to take the shot. right off the bat the AR user is going to get on target first, land the first bullet & that's the end of the vast majority of such encounters as the sniper will not get his scope on the target from that point on. so the AR has a huge advantage over a sniper providing the sniper is occupied, etc.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 7, 2009 18:56:43 GMT -5
and ACR > M16/famas by 2x. If the bursts did 55/35 damage like the FAiL, the ACR would still trump them hands down.
the M16/famas rely on a full connection on the first burst, which is NOT feasible on enough encounters to account for the ACR's insane accuracy. The ACR is the only weapon where you do not shoot BCM (body center mass). With the ACR you start firing almost neck high & actively seek the headshot.
Im not saying you're going to end every encounter with a 2nd shot headshot, but unlike any other weapon in the game INCLUDING the burst firing weapons. There is a HUGE chance at any range that the vast majority of your bullets will be as on-target as your skill level allows. I still <3 the M16/famas. But unlike COD4 they ARE outclassed by a 30-20 gun.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 7, 2009 19:54:35 GMT -5
I still contend that the reason why in a Sniper vs an AR strait up fight the AR wins is because getting sniped is not fun while going head to head with someone and having a chance to win is. That is not saying that a sniper dying against an AR is fun. It is saying that if you and the AR guy spot each other at the same time then you have already failed to snipe. Sniping is not just range it is range and stealth and if you lose the stealth game you lose the range one too.
There are some decent snipers in the game, though, and they make life very dangerous out there. The fact that there are fewer of them than AR users sounds like a good thing. I wouldn't find the game very fun if I couldn't even step outside without getting my head blown off by a sniper. Yes it's slower and you will likely get fewer kills unless you're a sniping god, but that's sniping. It's not supposed to be fast and furious.
As for the SMG's I don't know what to tell you. I think they are possibly a bit underpowered, but I've barely used them. I don't think they should have a huge advantage over AR's even in their range, though. Two equally skilled people going at it in CQC I personally don't want to see weapon choice determine 100% of the outcome's. I think tactics and strategy and luck should all be factors so the AR guy at least has a chance. Otherwise he might as well just hit Start and stand there picking his next class while you kill him. Why try if you cannot succeed? The AR is the gun that has at least a chance in every situation, but it is also outclassed in every situation by some other weapon.
I think we just disagree on how well this works, so there's not much I can say about that. I'm not about to tell you that your opinion is wrong, just that my opinion is different and here is why.
But I'm also going to try to use some SMG's here soon. I'm total shyte with them (and sniping), but I might as well do some challenges.
BTW The FAM16 only relies on the full burst at long range with SP. It is overreliant on SP for TTK, but pretty decent with it since it'll kill in 2 bullets which are almost always on target. If you can hit with the 1st bullet the 2nd nearly always does. The 3rd bullet is the straggler of the burst, naturally. I'm not saying it beats the ACR, though. ;p Hell I still don't have it. I WANT one. ;p hehee Recoil is my nemesis, which is why I like the burst guns. I get high damage and 3 shots down range before the recoil even throws my aim. None of the full auto high damage AR's can put the first three shots into such a tight group unless you single fire them and completely lose your full auto advantage. Some of the low damage ones on the other hand... >,>
Still, going w/o SP is a huge cost to the burst AR's. It doubles your TTK at close range with 1 burst since you need all three bullets and it does far worse to your long range TTK requiring at least two bursts even if all bullets hit, much less if the last bullet doesn't. I can tell you from experience that if you're sniping with it you will often get 2 our of 3 hit and the 3rd goes wide, then you've gotta tag him again before he runs off or nails you.
That's why I tend to think of them as long range shotguns with a very tight, but not unnoticeable spread. Of course on most maps you won't see many engagements at ranges where your spread becomes too much of a problem.
BTW I didn't say I don't want to play a game where skill is a factor. I think skill is a factor in MW2, if it weren't we'd all have the same rankings and so forth. It just isn't the only factor. I do NOT want to play a game where skill is THE only factor that determines who wins, because I am not a masochist and I will not endure months of training before I even get one kill. I play games for fun, not to prove I'm better than joo. I'm not, and you're not either. I do get competitive, but ultimately I do this for fun. MW2 wasn't designed to be a sport or a test, it's a game with fun as THE highest criteria. I don't think the game would be more fun if there were more snipers, so I'm happy with how hard it is to snipe properly and the fact that I have a chance if I spot them. I dunno on SMG's yet. I haven't used them enough to really test them out. LMG's and AR's seem to work a little differently, but still well. Sounds to me less like AR's are OP than SMG's might, might be UP, but I'm not really sure about that. It sounds to me more like they made this a longer range game than CoD4 and thus adjusted the weapons, but SMG's can't really be tweaked for that too much without turning them into AR's. I also don't see how having one class of weapons UP means MW2 is a no skill game. The BFG in Doom was a no skill weapon, AR's are not "noskill".
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 7, 2009 21:58:37 GMT -5
BTW I didn't say I don't want to play a game where skill is a factor. I think skill is a factor in MW2, if it weren't we'd all have the same rankings and so forth. It just isn't the only factor. I do NOT want to play a game where skill is THE only factor that determines who wins, because I am not a masochist and I will not endure months of training before I even get one kill. I play games for fun, not to prove I'm better than joo. I'm not, and you're not either. I do get competitive, but ultimately I do this for fun. MW2 wasn't designed to be a sport or a test, it's a game with fun as THE highest criteria. I don't think the game would be more fun if there were more snipers, so I'm happy with how hard it is to snipe properly and the fact that I have a chance if I spot them. I dunno on SMG's yet. I haven't used them enough to really test them out. LMG's and AR's seem to work a little differently, but still well. Sounds to me less like AR's are OP than SMG's might, might be UP, but I'm not really sure about that. It sounds to me more like they made this a longer range game than CoD4 and thus adjusted the weapons, but SMG's can't really be tweaked for that too much without turning them into AR's. I also don't see how having one class of weapons UP means MW2 is a no skill game. The BFG in Doom was a no skill weapon, AR's are not "noskill". I don't play it too competitive either but I can't stand the fact that I'm kind of pressed into a choice of weaponry just to not get a massive inherent disadvantage. To be fair, I only think sniper rifles (and SMGs and whatnot) are underpowered in context. I think their absolute performance atm is almost spot on. Well, if I could make a mod, I'd buff the Intervention just a little bit, and make the Uzi better as well as more distinct (for example, give it a much higher rate of fire, about 1100-1200 RPM, to make it more interesting. Would have to test lots though). But overall I'd say these classes perform the way they should. The problem is just that AR's are too good, thereby making the other weapons pale in comparison. If I could just modify the AR's, the other weapons would automatically become much less underpowered in comparison. On some current LMG's I'd nerf the current effects of the grip since this changes it from kind of the weapon it's balanced as into a real powerhouse with too little recoil to compensate. Grip would still be useful, just not a complete turnaround like it is now. I'd also change some of the akimbo settings since these feel really unpolished atm. On some weapons it's a must, on others it's an obvious waste. I'd like it to be both useful but not a must-have or a completely obvious choice. I like freedom of customisation. As for the original topic, the burst rifles... I'd probably make them do either 35-20 or even 30-20. Would make stopping power still useful but not as much a requirement as before, which is a good thing because this way you aren't pressed into a choice. I'd keep the recoil identical, but I might change one of them to a two-shot burst weapon just to make them actually functionally different. In that case, damage could remain 40-30 or something. Either this, or I'd give them the same hip spread as the FAL. Or a little bit of both. The other assault rifles... well I'd have a field day getting those just right.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 8, 2009 4:03:48 GMT -5
30-20 wouldn't make the burst weapons less reliant on SP. That would just make it impossible to get a one burst kill even at close range without SP, thus without SP it would be pretty worthless compared to other weapons. Sometimes needing a second burst and always needing a second are quite different.
With 35-20 you get no TTK benefit from SP, just better penetration damage and better headshots.
At long range SP would only make the difference between needing 5 shots and 4 shots. That would be a little faster and somewhat easier, but still well within two full bursts and probably not worth using a perk for.
For me if I can't kill in one burst I'd rather have a full auto.
It sounds to me more like SMG's could use a slight buff than AR's are OP, though I've still got to try SMG's myself before I can decide that. Simply being harder to use in and of it-self doesn't make them underpowered. I'm fully content with the current balance between AR's, LMG's, and Sniper Rifles with my only current concerns being the SMG's and dual 1887's.
I also think that the "slowest" weapon you are carrying should determine movement speed, not what was your primary weapon... before you swapped it for something else. Being able to pickup somebody else's riot shield and run around at 100% speed with 1887's and a shield on your back is OP. lol
Maybe that's what is supposed to balance SMG's, you use it to have 100% movement then dump it for an LMG or Riot Shield or something and keep the speed. ;p Or even an AR, though you only get 5% speed bonus over that.
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 8, 2009 8:51:54 GMT -5
30-20 wouldn't make the burst weapons less reliant on SP. That would just make it impossible to get a one burst kill even at close range without SP, thus without SP it would be pretty worthless compared to other weapons. Sometimes needing a second burst and always needing a second are quite different. Good snipers don't run around with their rifles out in buildings and other close-combat environments, they pull out their pistols. I don't see why the same thing can't go for burst rifles without SP. WITH SP, you could eliminate this need. Thus, it'd still be useful but not a complete requirement like it is now. It sounds to me more like SMG's could use a slight buff than AR's are OP, though I've still got to try SMG's myself before I can decide that. Simply being harder to use in and of it-self doesn't make them underpowered. This is true, but I can't really think of what would make them better except to change 40 damage into 50 and 30 into 40, which shouldn't be necessary is the assault rifles didn't have both high damage and tight spread IMO. You could also tighten the crosshairs further but again, this doesn't give you that critical of an advantage against other tight crosshairs.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 14:13:51 GMT -5
the fam16 is no better than any of the other good ar's (non ak/f2k).
the simple fact of the matter is that every other AR short of the TAR can be fired full automatic at infinate range across maps and kill people without much effort. Half the time even the TAR can do it without having to burst it 1 time.
The fam16 has a major trade off. If you do NOT kill within the first 3 bullets (which is COMMON for various reasons) you are now dealing with a pissant 400-450rpm MAXIMUM. When I gave the RPM figures that was using a macro that has a near 850rpm fire rate and all of those inputs get accepted. Using a lesser macro you're now stuck using older, crappy 400-450rpm fire rate macro. using a faster macro will result in dropped/skipped inputs as the game thinks you're cheating and its programed to simply ignore that input and go to the next one. So the PRACTICAL rate of fire of hand firing a fam16 is EASILY sub 400rpm.
The noob laser (m16+rds) when used correctly could absolutely dominate cod4. Its now 2009 and there are a dozen reasons why the fam16 is no longer noob laser status: The average fire rate is pitifully low, if you miss cgts you're at a massive disadvantage Less accurate than the acr, M4 SCAR and TAR at long range. Those can be fired full-auto and kept on target across the map. The M16 can't. This compounds itself with range (first by AT BEST requiring 2 bursts where only the first 2 bullets can possibly be on target from recoil, second by AT BEST requiring 3 bursts where only the first bullet can possibly be kept on target.)
Same problem up close when trying to shotgun with it. IF you do not kill in your first volley, you're now dealing with an automatic gun going off in your face VS a weapon with at best (without cheating) 50% the average fire rate as your opponent.
Telling people that the fam16 is STILL the best in the game like it was overall in COD4 is simply bad information at this point. They're good, they're useable, but they no longer hold the status they did in cod4.
/thread
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 14:18:18 GMT -5
I still contend that the reason why in a Sniper vs an AR strait up fight the AR wins... The AR wins because compaired to a SR the AR has an infinate aiming rate. maximum ADS movement (aming) speed is roughly 35% of maximum HF speed. What is the maximum aiming speed of a scoped weapon? (just tossing out a bs number here) 0.5% of hf aiming speed? Fact is if you want to talk fair fight VS fair fight the AR user will always have his weapon on target and hitting first, and once the first bullet hits a sniper his ability to get his scope on his target just flew out the window.
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 8, 2009 14:28:29 GMT -5
Which is why it takes more skill. The only 'various reason' you have there is a fail at aiming. Which is entirely skill-based. That's half of what FPS games are. Aiming.
Therefore, if you are good, they are among the best guns in the game because they have great AR damage, huge RoF for the bullets that matter, and nigh-perfect accuracy.
A lack of good aim is the only reason FAMAS/M16 doesn't make up 80% of primary weapon choices.
Edit; somehow, I completely missed this comment from way back in the thread.
Yes, it does. You cannot afford to make mistakes, otherwise the FAM16 will go from best rifle to pretty goddamn mediocre rifle. With an automatic, a miss is not nearly as significant because there is not a huge delay (relatively) that will get you killed by anyone else with the ability to aim.
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 8, 2009 14:31:42 GMT -5
I still contend that the reason why in a Sniper vs an AR strait up fight the AR wins... The AR wins because compaired to a SR the AR has an infinate aiming rate. maximum ADS movement (aming) speed is roughly 35% of maximum HF speed. What is the maximum aiming speed of a scoped weapon? (just tossing out a bs number here) 0.5% of hf aiming speed? Fact is if you want to talk fair fight VS fair fight the AR user will always have his weapon on target and hitting first, and once the first bullet hits a sniper his ability to get his scope on his target just flew out the window. This is why I bump my sensitivity up to like 6-7 so you can drag shot with the sniper and get your scope up and over the enemy quickly. Then its all about the timing of firing the shot. This is more a console strategy for sniping I guess.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 14:42:50 GMT -5
any sniper worth a shit snipes on 10
regardless, the MAXIMUM rate of aiming when sniping isn't a single percent of the hf rate, and IF i spent the time to test it would't be 10% of the 35% rate that ADS of a normal weapon aims at.
everything i play with is played on 10 (xim ftw)
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 14:47:20 GMT -5
guys, this isn't cod4. IT IS NOT harder to 4 5 or 6 shot kill across a map in MW2 with the automatic AR's that matter... It takes no more skill to use either rifle. period.
unlike cod4, now the fam16 have SERIOUS penalties as once you start shooting it at a range where the third bullet CAN NOT hit the target youa re at a sever disadvantage as all the other AR's CAN run you over in accurate automatic fire. This is compounded once you hit a range where only the FIRST bullet will accurate hit the target.
cod4 = inaccurate automatics at range MW2 = accurate automatics at range
|
|
|
Post by legacy on Dec 8, 2009 15:14:41 GMT -5
any sniper worth a doo-doo snipes on 10 regardless, the MAXIMUM rate of aiming when sniping isn't a single percent of the hf rate, and IF i spent the time to test it would't be 10% of the 35% rate that ADS of a normal weapon aims at. everything i play with is played on 10 (xim ftw) What I was trying to say was if you are quick with the sniper scope and use sensitivity 6, you can aim and kill faster than a AR player with sense on 2 or 3. I don't really bother too much with TTK numbers because there are so many variables to take into account. Yes, if both players are standing in the open, facing each other, and are at medium range the AR user would destroy the sniper, but this is not usually how it works during an online match.
|
|
|
Post by ssog on Dec 8, 2009 17:25:08 GMT -5
This is true, but I can't really think of what would make them better except to change 40 damage into 50 and 30 into 40, which shouldn't be necessary is the assault rifles didn't have both high damage and tight spread IMO. You could also tighten the crosshairs further but again, this doesn't give you that critical of an advantage against other tight crosshairs. There are plenty of easy ways to beef up SMGs relative to the other weapon classes. Give them a 5-10% movement speed bonus, for instance. Tighten their hip spread. My favorite would be beefing up the SMG-specific attachments (Rapid Fire and Akimbo). It'd be cool if there was some way to "quasi-ADS" with Akimbo SMGs that would extend both of your arms forward (so you're holding your SMGs at arms length in front of your face, like this, instead of at your hip, like this). It could result in a much, much tighter spread, with the drawback of obscuring a bit more of your view. Maybe make it so you could toggle between the two stances with weapon switch (like a 3rd weapon), or even replace melee with a toggle (because, really, how the heck are you supposed to be knifing with guns in both hands?).
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 18:29:14 GMT -5
may not seem like it to you, but i never fear snipers.
in COD4 i would pop them in the face with an M16/ M14+RDS because it aims infinately faster and they would die. in MW2 i pop them in the face with the ACR SCAR or TAR and they die.
btw i the maximum aiming rate of a sniper is like 1/3 as fast. Ill take the sniper not shooting a killing shot off the start VS me putting the hurt on him every chance i get.
|
|
toysrme
True Bro
"Even at normal Health, there's no other choice than the Vector" Den Kirson
Posts: 1,339
|
Post by toysrme on Dec 8, 2009 18:31:47 GMT -5
ssog im not sure what would fix SMG's without making them overpowered in core.
|
|