|
|
Post by ilikev8 on Dec 28, 2009 19:35:59 GMT -5
Considering the Famas/M16/Raffica are nearly the same, I think they are too good at hipfiring or close quarters. The three round bursts come out at over 900 RPM and kill in 2 shots,killing quicker than any automatic weapon even though they were made for mid to long range. People can say there is a delay between bursts, but IMO there is bearly any and if the person gets one burst on you, your dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 28, 2009 19:40:48 GMT -5
This is a point I have been trying to make for a while (not just the close range, but the fact burst rifles have everything going for them), but it doesn't really feel like anyone cares. ACR is the best!!!, nevermind the fact that the burst rifles fire faster with a whole step up on the damage ladder and still being similar in accuracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 28, 2009 19:51:21 GMT -5
This is a point I have been trying to make for a while (not just the close range, but the fact burst rifles have everything going for them), but it doesn't really feel like anyone cares. ACR is the best!!!, nevermind the fact that the burst rifles fire faster with a whole step up on the damage ladder and still being similar in accuracy. Just because the ACR is even more blatantly overpowered doesn't mean the burst rifles aren't overpowered too, though  . |
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 28, 2009 19:57:11 GMT -5
But how is the ACR more blatantly more overpowered than the FAMAS and co?
ACR Traits
30-20 damage
~850 RoF
100% Accuracy
Burst traits
40-30 damage
900+ RoF
99,9% Accuracy
|
|
|
|
Post by palestblue on Dec 28, 2009 21:07:25 GMT -5
But how is the ACR more blatantly more overpowered than the FAMAS and co? ACR Traits 30-20 damage ~850 RoF 100% Accuracy Burst traits 40-30 damage 900+ RoF 99,9% Accuracy You appear to have inflated those accuracy figures. I have a lot of experience with both the ACR and burst-fire weapons, and I can assure you that the M16 and FAMAS will, on average, take one to two bursts to kill up close, usually two at medium range, and often three at long ranges. There is quite a significant difference in recoil between the ACR and FAMAS, and you can test this easily. (It might not look like much of a difference, but at long range, any recoil is exaggerated greatly in terms of effect.) But without even testing it, it is evident that, at the long ranges, it is usual for the M16 and FAMAS to hit just one bullet out of the three. The ACR is maybe not quite as effective at long range, but still effective enough to beat the other assault rifles, and it's more consistent at medium range, where the full-auto capability really matters. As soon as the M16 or FAMAS take more than one burst to kill, you might as well have used the ACR (except for at long ranges, as I have stated), with its superior accuracy and superior TTK (assuming one burst or more is missed). I'm not necessarily saying that the ACR is the superior weapon or that the burst weapons are the best. The point I'm making is that there is such a slim line between them that putting up some ROF and damage figures is unable to prove anything. You have to consider more. But on the topic of this thread, I would argue that, while they can be very effective up close, they are also unreliable. They can win hip-fire fights when they're not supposed to, but can also lose them when you start with an advantage. This is just the nature of burst weapons. But to argue that their ability to win fights up close makes them overpowered is, I believe, invalid. For a start, consider the Skorpion in CoD4. That could win firefights at long range with great ease and with still a decent TTK (within the fastest reach of human reaction time). Yet, close up, it still killed extremely quickly with great mobility. But no one called the Skorpion overpowered. So suddenly to argue that the burst weapons are overpowered because, occasionally, they function well outside of their optimal range seems to be inconsistent. Snipers kill instantly up close. They are not considered overpowered. I also do not believe that you can argue that the one-bursts up close occur commonly. As I stated earlier, I've used burst weapons a lot, and while lucky kills do happen -- I'm not denying the existence of them! -- it is a lot less commonly than expected deaths to SMGs up close. It is not irregular for a FAMAS to take four or five bursts from the hip to get the two necessary hits at close range. If you've used the burst weapons extensively -- in either CoD4 or MW2 -- you'll have observed their ability to be inconsistent up close. Any more than one burst, and another rifle would have been more effective. And I can guarantee you that one-burst hip-fire kills at close range occur in about 1 out of 5 or 6 fights. That figure alone is not sufficient to declare them overpowered. People have been complaining about burst-fire guns in both this game and its predecessor for over two years now, but almost every time the complaint is because of the lucky one-burst kill. These same people often forget that being consistent with these weapons is something that takes a lot more time and effort to master than, say, becoming consistent with the M4. |
|
|
|
Post by farixis on Dec 28, 2009 21:37:48 GMT -5
One of the main reasons I hate the burst weapons is their behavior in relation to the prediction code. Where almost any auto gun will NOT kill you if you're sprinting around a corner, the FAM16 will do so, reliably. You'll be around the corner, then fall over dead, because on the shooters screen, you were exposed, he fired, you died in one burst.
This extends to their behavior at close range where (more with Steady Aim than without), they'll often see you, fire one shot, and drop you like they were packing a shotgun.
The shotguns do exactly that but they require the use of your secondary slot, and have very significant weapon switch times.
Getting macked by a FAM16 at close range is exceedingly frustrating, because in theory, they're better long to mid-long guns, not 'good at all ranges, and can kill you around corners' guns.
They probably do, on average, lose more fights up close than the other ARs, but when you die to them, especially if you do happen to have a shotgun or SMG out (and sometimes firing!), it's hard not to feel like you were just robbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 28, 2009 21:38:51 GMT -5
Maybe after 3 shots the recoil will become noticeable, but the recoil of the first burst is totally negligible, and if you can aim good the first burst is the only one that matters.
That was a summary. The only thing that the FAMAS has against it is it's not as good for non-veteran players because it becomes worse if you miss. There is nothing else to consider past 1) damage 2) rate of fire 3) accuracy and 4) acr is more user-friendly for ACRvFAMAS. They're both assault rifles so they have the same attachments, they have the same speed, same ADS, same speed when ADS, similar reload switch etc times, and all of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikev8 on Dec 28, 2009 22:34:21 GMT -5
Hipfiring with burst weapons is unreliable, but when luck favors you, nothing can beat you except maybe a shotgun which is just as unreliable in my experience. Ok, so you have an M16 with 925 RPM with 56 damage, and an MP5k with 850 RPM with equal damage. MP5 has superior hipfire accuracy and movement speed, the M16's larger hipfire makes it sometimes it takes two bursts to kill, which plays to the fully automatic MP5's advantage. However everybody gets lucky and he could instantly drop you with a single burst as if it were a shotgun.
I say reduce hipfiring accuracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikev8 on Dec 28, 2009 22:48:09 GMT -5
But how is the ACR more blatantly more overpowered than the FAMAS and co? ACR Traits 30-20 damage ~850 RoF 100% Accuracy Burst traits 40-30 damage 900+ RoF 99,9% Accuracy You appear to have inflated those accuracy figures. I have a lot of experience with both the ACR and burst-fire weapons, and I can assure you that the M16 and FAMAS will, on average, take one to two bursts to kill up close, usually two at medium range, and often three at long ranges. There is quite a significant difference in recoil between the ACR and FAMAS, and you can test this easily. (It might not look like much of a difference, but at long range, any recoil is exaggerated greatly in terms of effect.) But without even testing it, it is evident that, at the long ranges, it is usual for the M16 and FAMAS to hit just one bullet out of the three. The ACR is maybe not quite as effective at long range, but still effective enough to beat the other assault rifles, and it's more consistent at medium range, where the full-auto capability really matters. As soon as the M16 or FAMAS take more than one burst to kill, you might as well have used the ACR (except for at long ranges, as I have stated), with its superior accuracy and superior TTK (assuming one burst or more is missed). I'm not necessarily saying that the ACR is the superior weapon or that the burst weapons are the best. The point I'm making is that there is such a slim line between them that putting up some ROF and damage figures is unable to prove anything. You have to consider more. But on the topic of this thread, I would argue that, while they can be very effective up close, they are also unreliable. They can win hip-fire fights when they're not supposed to, but can also lose them when you start with an advantage. This is just the nature of burst weapons. But to argue that their ability to win fights up close makes them overpowered is, I believe, invalid. For a start, consider the Skorpion in CoD4. That could win firefights at long range with great ease and with still a decent TTK (within the fastest reach of human reaction time). Yet, close up, it still killed extremely quickly with great mobility. But no one called the Skorpion overpowered. So suddenly to argue that the burst weapons are overpowered because, occasionally, they function well outside of their optimal range seems to be inconsistent. Snipers kill instantly up close. They are not considered overpowered. I also do not believe that you can argue that the one-bursts up close occur commonly. As I stated earlier, I've used burst weapons a lot, and while lucky kills do happen -- I'm not denying the existence of them! -- it is a lot less commonly than expected deaths to SMGs up close. It is not irregular for a FAMAS to take four or five bursts from the hip to get the two necessary hits at close range. If you've used the burst weapons extensively -- in either CoD4 or MW2 -- you'll have observed their ability to be inconsistent up close. Any more than one burst, and another rifle would have been more effective. And I can guarantee you that one-burst hip-fire kills at close range occur in about 1 out of 5 or 6 fights. That figure alone is not sufficient to declare them overpowered.People have been complaining about burst-fire guns in both this game and its predecessor for over two years now, but almost every time the complaint is because of the lucky one-burst kill. These same people often forget that being consistent with these weapons is something that takes a lot more time and effort to master than, say, becoming consistent with the M4. Excellent post, but sometimes luck and that one gunfight is everything. Play a game type like Search and Destroy, no respawns and most competitive players prefer it. In theory and gameplay wise, a close quarter oriented SMG should be better at close range, but that lucky burst is what makes a winning game or a losing one. This is why I think S&D doesn't demonstrate skill except maybe for awareness and some degree of teamwork. |
|
link0
True Bro
Posts: 114 
|
Post by link0 on Dec 28, 2009 22:59:38 GMT -5
Why would you hipfire with the FAM16? I use ADS until it's knife range.
I do agree the burst weapons are too powerful close range for people with really good aim and a really good ping.
I personally do about as good with my FAMAS close range as when using the TAR.
|
|
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 28, 2009 23:30:00 GMT -5
they are fine in close range
you've got all the lag & hit detection in the world to get your shots in also
|
|
i8
True Bro
Posts: 10,211
|
Post by i8 on Dec 28, 2009 23:51:51 GMT -5
when i use a burst weapon in close quarters about 3 out of 4 firefights i shotgun the guy
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 29, 2009 1:34:20 GMT -5
Only if you're host, otherwise that goes both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 29, 2009 1:47:54 GMT -5
when i use a burst weapon in close quarters about 3 out of 4 firefights i shotgun the guy So in actual fact, you only use a burst fire weapon in CQB, for 1/4 of the time... |
|
|
|
Post by toad on Dec 29, 2009 3:25:34 GMT -5
All I used in COD4 was the the M16A4 with Stopping Power. I don't even bother in MF2. I wonder why... ?
The M16A4 can seem great at times, and the useless at others. If you don't kill with the first burst, you're often in deep poo. The amount of times someone has killed me because I've been hit by one of their bullets when trying to fire on them, which makes all 3 of my bullets miss. Annoying.
|
|
|
|
Post by chyros on Dec 29, 2009 5:46:30 GMT -5
But how is the ACR more blatantly more overpowered than the FAMAS and co? ACR Traits 30-20 damage ~850 RoF 100% Accuracy Burst traits 40-30 damage 900+ RoF 99,9% Accuracy Bursts are a weakness. If you're dealing with opponents up close, a miss means death, and with multiple opponents you don't have a chance to begin with. The ACR doesn't have these problems, and can keep landing headshots in full auto all across the map without any problems, and can mow down people in groups or up close without problem. The extra damage the burst weapons do doesn't compensate for that, especially since full-auto weapons make people get damage viewkick all the time while burst weapons leave gaps and make you vulnerable to that instead. |
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 29, 2009 5:56:24 GMT -5
I find it hard to mow down people with a gun that requires 3+ shots to kill at best, with <900 rpm. By all means its a good gun, but its not one that kills fast at close range. I'd rather take out the first guy faster to give me less bullets coming at me. Realistically, though, neither one of them will do you any good 2v1 up close. If you're up against noobs you'll survive with either of them. If you're not up against noobs you'll die with both of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ecomni on Dec 29, 2009 9:50:31 GMT -5
I'm in cpt's camp here. Even with all the attention the full-auto ARs get, I think that, just like in COD4, the burst rifles are still the best guns in the game. In theory, no doubt. But even in reality, when the M16/FAMAS doesn't miss much or, yes, you see that lucky one-burst hip-fire kill at SMG range, it's still extremely good.
|
|
iKONIG
True Bro
Don't know what to put here, Just something random.
Posts: 220
|
Post by iKONIG on Dec 29, 2009 9:58:10 GMT -5
I'm sick of this dog doo-doo, is it seriously that hard to make a balanced game?
Infinity Ward; "Oh, looks like we screwed up and made the M16 and P90 overpowered. Lets fix it by making all the over weapons overpowered aswell, and heck, while we're at it, we'll remove juggernaut, make the Intervention, AK47, F2000, grenades, throwing knives and all the SMGs completely pointless. Oh, lets pay some guy to talk doo-doo to the public while we try to come up with more excuses, lets name him FourZeroTwo! Yes, I think that'l make a very subtle game. Now all we need now is a half an hour campaign, some flashy voice actors, and snow with lasers coming out of them"
Why don't they just chuck all the 3 burst guns all together? I don't get why you would have SMG's when you can just use machine pistols either?
|
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 29, 2009 10:10:57 GMT -5
I'm sick of this dog doo-doo, is it seriously that hard to make a balanced game? Infinity Ward; "Oh, looks like we screwed up and made the M16 and P90 overpowered. Lets fix it by making all the over weapons overpowered aswell, and heck, while we're at it, we'll remove juggernaut, make the Intervention, AK47, F2000, grenades, throwing knives and all the SMGs completely pointless. It could be argued that because we can't seem to get a cohesive majority agreement on the different options, that there IS balance (of a sort anyway). I think the FAMAS is easily the best AR, yet there will be plenty of members on here who totally disagree with that opinion. Thank god for the removal of Juggernaut, one hell of an annoying and overpowered perk. Throwing knives whilst underused, are still a OHK, something that seems to get forgotten about. If you've got the decision between switching to secondary or reloading your main weapon, why not consider option 3 - chuck a throwing knife, it's pretty much instakill and unexpected by your opponent... Grenades are less powerful than Semtex, but have more flexibility of usage, and being fair, will still kill without a problem, it's just everyone has got fixated on the higher damage and the potential to stick someone with Semtex. The SMG's whilst outclassed in most situations by the AR's, still do have some areas of specialisation that makes them viable, but these options are far less than with the AR's. I will however agree regarding the F2K, never used a worse pile 'o junk. Anything else you want to address? Indy |
|
|
|
Post by ecomni on Dec 29, 2009 10:17:22 GMT -5
Thank god for the removal of Juggernaut, one hell of an annoying and overpowered perk. Annoying, yes. But overpowered? I don't know. SP was still King of the Mountain |
|
|
|
Post by Indy_Bones on Dec 29, 2009 10:20:02 GMT -5
Thank god for the removal of Juggernaut, one hell of an annoying and overpowered perk. Annoying, yes. But overpowered? I don't know. SP was still King of the Mountain Well, they were just about the only two choices that we in competition for the 'must have perk' option. I sometimes found that even with SP on, a JUG user would manage to get the kill, it was particularly annoying for shots at range, as you may hit 2-3 times but the JUG would save them just in time for them to get into cover. Close call however. |
|
|
|
Post by ecomni on Dec 29, 2009 10:31:56 GMT -5
I will say that Jugs did have a very big "not working as intended" advantage (if the effect was supposed to be one extra bullet to kill), and that was against non-SP users with 20 min damage weapons. At distance, Jugs would take 2 extra bullets instead of just one.
That said, to this day, I think Jugs just got a bad rap because of how lame it felt to use. I saw FAR more SP users than Jugs in all of my COD4/WaW playtime. Only time I used Jugs was on guns that didn't benefit from SP, and that was more of a "don't die instantly to SP users with my situationally strong gun" defense rather than anything else
|
|
|
|
Post by palestblue on Dec 29, 2009 11:45:03 GMT -5
Excellent post, but sometimes luck and that one gunfight is everything. Play a game type like Search and Destroy, no respawns and most competitive players prefer it. In theory and gameplay wise, a close quarter oriented SMG should be better at close range, but that lucky burst is what makes a winning game or a losing one. This is why I think S&D doesn't demonstrate skill except maybe for awareness and some degree of teamwork. I agree with you on S&D. I still play competitive CoD4 (on Gamebattles) and have some competitive experience on MW2, and I totally agree with you that luck plays a major factor. Several times I've taken out guys rushing with SMGs with my M16 hip fire when I definitely did not deserve to win. But there have been equal instances when I've got the jump on someone and started hip spraying with the M16, missed the first couple of bursts, and got killed. Sometimes it's amazingly good. But equally -- and I truly mean equally -- it's amazingly bad. The recoil of the first burst will be similar to the recoil of every subsequent burst. It's easy to say 'if you can aim good', but what exactly is 'aiming good'? I'm familiar with professional play (not having participated in it but having watched it) and I can promise you that even the players with the best M16 shots do not always hit their first bursts, especially on moving targets, when you cannot spray as with the full-autos. Hitting the first burst consistently takes a lot of skill. Mowing someone down with half a magazine of ACR takes a lot less. I honestly can't believe that there are arguments about the TTK. TTK is not everything. It is one small factor amidst the myriad that define one person's most effective weapon. If TTK was everything, as some are making it out to be, why is the UMP the most commonly used competitive gun on most maps? It has just about the slowest TTK of all the SMGs! Why is the ACR used over all the other assault rifles, all of which kill faster than it? I don't see any arguments about overpowered snipers, but they have the no TTK at all. Versatility and consistency are just two of many, many other measures that must be accounted for when considering a weapon's balance, and the burst weapons are inferior to all the other assault rifles in those two categories. Convieniently, though, those who argue about the 'overpowered' nature of burst weapons seem to forget about consistency and versatility and a whole lot more that do not work in their favour. Hence, in my humble opinion, I believe this statement to be absolutely false. |
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 29, 2009 17:41:56 GMT -5
The recoil of the burst is there (hence the 99,9% and not 100% on my comparison), it's just negligible when you fire one burst. As you keep firing these little increments of recoil will add up.
Hence why I said the ACR is more user-friendly.
CONTEXT. I never said TTK was the only thing that matters overall. However, in THIS comparison, it IS. Therefore, bringing up things like the UMP's ttk and snipers is irrelevant. The ACR and FAMAS are assault rifles with the only differences between them being burstfire vs. auto and damage, accuracy, rate of fire - all of which are related to TTK. So when the only differences between the guns are related to TTK, the only thing that's going to matter is TTK. I mean, I guess the reload time is a bit different, but I think ttk is significantly more important than half a second reload time.
Your arguments with versatility and consistency don't really apply here. Being assault rifles they pretty much have the same versatility. Both are damn consistent too because of their accuracy.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Dec 29, 2009 18:42:22 GMT -5
Lack of full auto means some reduced versatility, especially at close range. And it also means less consistency in close quarters kills because hipfiring the FAM16 is playing the lottery with your life.
I think the problem here is more a matter of perception. You see the weapon used to kill you in the killcam, but you don't really see it when the guy's burst goes all over the place and he dies.
From personal experience the FAM16 is my favorite AR even more than the ACR although I'm enjoying it too, and I'm with Link0. I don't gamble on the hipfire. Maybe if I used Steady Aim, but I rarely have it on. In ADS the FAM16 is very consistent, in hipfire it's a crapshoot. Fact is that it's fast TTK ONLY counts if the first burst connects. In order to do that you have to either ADS or get lucky, both of which add considerable downsides to the weapon.
I'm not a player that sticks with just one weapon. I've been unlocking all the AR's up to Thermal Scope at least before moving on, (except the FAL, but I guess I'll have to soon). I overused my FAMAS and SCAR-H before really moving on, though and unlocked extended mags on the SCAR, and have a few pen Kills to go on the FAMAS. Anyway, honestly, in closer fights I would prefer to have my SCAR or even a TAR for the full auto. You should not discount the disadvantage of the damage kick. That is the single greatest frustration when using a FAM16. They just nick you and you've sprayed your entire burst at some poor innocent wall and then you're dead.
Having said that I do feel that I'm pretty decent at using them in close quarters. You have to get a feel for using your cover so that you can ADS without leaving yourself open so much. It does work, even against multiple enemies, if you have cover, especially with SP. But is it OP? Oh come on...
I think this belongs in the whining... I mean gripes thread.
I have an idea. How about we only include one gun and one perk and one completely symmetrical map and we completely eliminate all random variables. The game will be perfectly balanced and skill based! I'll keep playing MW2.
I can understand you feeling ripped off because you got killed a lot by it, but well... it's a decent gun and apparently those players were good with it. If you're rubbish with it then it will get you killed. Go pwn those noobs that try it. The net code favors the first person to see regardless of the gun. TTK does help, but the fact is that if you see a FAM16 user first you have the same advantage because if you can hit with your first bullet they are all but helpless anyway save for the rare lucky burst. And if you have a shotty or something akimbo that 0TTK's then you have a huge advantage regardless of what weapon they have. Really if you are the first person to see and you have 0TTK then they could have a friggin BFG and it won't mean crap because they'll be dead before they see you come around the corner, even if they are Host. (Though being host does give a very real advantage.)
Having said that, I pity the foo that tries to run and gun with a FAM16. I find it extremely amusing that you want it nerfed because you feel like people are run and gunning with it and killing you. There are much much better weapons for run and gunning. Ones that will not leave you standing there with your pants around your ankles quite so often.
I think this is another case of "I think that [insert weapon that kills/frustrates me most] is overpowered! Clearly I'm better than all these noobs and only their weapons lets them kill me, ever."
Luck is a factor and sometimes you're going to get pwned even when you didn't make any mistakes. That's the game. It's not a bug, a glitch, or an oversight. Sometimes it's hugely frustrating, especially things like stupid respawns. But honestly I can't go in with you on this one. The FAM16 is a fine weapon, but it has to be used wisely to really shine. Personally I think it's a great weapon for MW2 because it requires skill and experience to really make it shine, and then once you know what you're doing you can be pretty badass with it. You can get better with the other AR's too, but not to the same degree. Of course what that's actually saying is that mistakes cost you a lot more with the FAM16 than with the fully auto's. If that's going to be the case then there should be some payoff for learning the weapon to the nth degree and mastering it. And it turns out there is, but it's not huge.
On the other hand if IW decided to decrease hipfire accuracy to satisfy the naysayers... personally... I wouldn't give a hoot. I'm pretty good at using cover to allow me to ADS even in pretty close fights and I just can't stand hipfiring the gun anyway. I like my bursts on target. Not that I always wait for the entire ADS animation either... heh I'm not sure but I think my timing on it often fires something like the first 2 shots hipfire and manages to ADS the 3rd shot.
Anyway, have fun out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by palestblue on Dec 29, 2009 18:49:34 GMT -5
The recoil does not compound by each burst. In the first burst, bullet 1 will be accurate, 2 less accurate, and 3 even less so. In the second burst, bullet 1 will be accurate, 2 less accurate, and 3 even less so. You can continue this trend to infinity. The boundaries of recoil do not change between bursts. Bullet 3 of the 5th burst will often have similar recoil to bullet 3 of the 1st burst and bullet 3 of the 10th burst.
I agree with you on this point, then.
We're discussing the overall power of burst weapons. Of course TTK isn't the only thing that matters overall. As I've asserted, innumerable factors define what makes one weapon better than another.
I was using those as extreme examples to illustrate my point. I said that people shouldn't complain about burst weapons solely because of TTK because of snipers and because the low-TTK UMP is extremely effective in competitive play.
Statistically. But maybe the auto mechanism allows you to play more effective spots. Maybe it allows you to be more mobile. Maybe it increases the usefulness of drop-shotting. But then we'd have to qualify this by evaluating the ups and downs of drop-shotting with an AR. There are infinite questions we can ask when trying to differentiate between the effectiveness of two weapons. Saying that fire rate, accuracy, power, and mobility are the only things that matter when choosing a weapon is nonsense. If it was as simple as that, we could create a mathematical formula, plug in some numbers, and get the best weapon. The layout of the maps played, for example, is another thing that matters. If it didn't, why do we choose different guns for different maps?
As demonstrated above, I disagree with this. You cannot deny that other factors such as size and geography of map would influence gun effectiveness and choice. One more example would be what the enemies are using. How good the enemies are. What positions they are playing. There are so many factors that affect weapon choice and effectiveness.
People are arguing that burst-fire weapons are overpowered. I'm saying that one reason they may not be is because of versatility. What is wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by ilikev8 on Dec 29, 2009 19:59:53 GMT -5
Lack of full auto means some reduced versatility, especially at close range. And it also means less consistency in close quarters kills because hipfiring the FAM16 is playing the lottery with your life.Yes, the hipfiring is random and is more luck than it is skill, but every once in a while the burst connects and no assault rifle can beat a FAM16's TTK. In a real game this is what decides what team/player wins or loses. People never use the FAM16 for there run and gun classes, as it is not reliable but roll the dice and if you get the burst, they are good as dead. |
|
|
|
Post by randombs on Dec 29, 2009 20:21:52 GMT -5
"and I can assure you that the M16 and FAMAS will, on average, take one to two bursts to kill up close, usually two at medium range, and often three at long ranges"
Sorry man, but you must be awful at the game or lag is fucking you over. The FAMAS will always group the first 2 shots close enough to hit within 2 bullet kill ranges, as long as you get a clean shot on target, you should never take more than one burst at medium range, and ESPECIALLY not at close range. More often than not the third bullet will also be grouped close enough so even at long ranges and without stopping power it is not uncommon to get one burst kills. As long as a target isn't moving, I don't think I've ever needed more than 2 bursts at extreme range with SP on. I think I'll do a video testing the one burst kill capability at extreme ranges, such as across derail.
|
|
|
|
Post by cptmacmillan on Dec 29, 2009 20:33:15 GMT -5
After the first burst you're a negligible amount above where you orginally aiming. If you do ten of these without adjusting your aim, it will add up to be a lot higher than where you originally were. However, this recoil is extremely easy to adjust for because it's 100% predictable (straight up, like scar) and it's a small amount. The only difference this recoil makes is in recoil tests where you just fire.
I, personally, am discussing the power of burst weapons (especially the FAMAS) compared with the ACR which is widely considered the best assault rifle. Those innumerable factors that you're asserting - they're all identical on the FAMAS and the ACR. There are literally only five differences between the guns. 1) Firing mode. 2) Damage 3) Recoil/Accuracy 4) Rate of Fire 5) Reload speed. The first four are related to TTK. The fifth is insignificant.
All of your arguments about versatility are relating to #1; there are not more differences. Regardless to what conclusion you come to with the effectiveness of dropshotting or dolphin diving, what does that make a difference? The FAMAS can dropshot just as well as an ACR - just because you're proning doesn't mean you should be missing, therefore the ACR's autofire doesn't mean anything. Why can't you ADS at close quarters? You don't have to make it luck, just pull both triggers at once.
The ONLY thing that separates burst fire and autofire is: Autofire is more effective if you need 4+ bullets to kill. Burstfire is more effective if you need less than 4 bullets to kill. Dropshotting does not make you take 4+ bullets to kill. Map geography does not make you take 4+ bullets to kill.
There is a point in there somewhere that hurts my argument that you didn't bring up. The one area where the ACR outclasses the FAMAS in versatility because of auto vs. burst is when you're not using stopping power. In scrims following a ruleset with no perks, or if you choose coldblooded, lightweight, whatever the hell you choose that's not stopping power... THEN the ACR outclasses it.
So, I restate my claim to 'FAMAS is the best assault rifle with stopping power'.
Oh, and another argument to rebuke. The one with killing multiple enemies, which takes more than 3 bullets. The xbox360 mp40 was by far the worst SMG against multiple enemies. But it was by far the best in a 1v1 scenario. Everyone called it overpowered.
|
|
.
