The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Bad Company 2: Server Donation Info in the OP!
Posts
I do often grab the Saiga if the fighting is especially close quarters, but usually I stick with the SCAR, though I'm really close to unlocking the AKS-74U
Also, don't be afraid to introduce your enemies to your best friend Carl Gustav. He may have a preference for armored vehicles, but he can still turn infantry into paste (especially if they're behind walls).
And here, the M24 does 60 damage a missed shot. The M95 does 80. I sure as fuck think 20 damage is a lot to consider, even if it doesn't seem to be any different to Mr. All I Do Is Play Sniper But Can't Headshot.
So basically you either fire a slow moving projectile or become stationary to kill a helicopter or light vehicles. Or the M95. That lets you move around and fires a bullet. You don't see how that's useful? It's not my fault you don't see the big picture. I don't even understand why you'd think making the M95 as accurate as the M24 would be a good idea. The M95 would be better in every way except reloading, but not much a disadvantage there.
There's no tiered bullshit in the game, otherwise level four people would have no chance against level 20 people and how would that be fun?
Also, what is this "host of other weapons". Only mounted MGs, heavy armor's weapons, rockets, or the M95 can damage light armored vehicles.
Not nearly as much hilarity as me trying to fly the chopper in the first place. If at all possible, just let me fly the thing if you're on the opposing team. It'll get wrecked a lot faster than trying to shoot it down. Also, possibly flipped upside down.
And I think it's dumb that the M95 has reduced accuracy for balance while the M60 is a beastly death machine. In comparison, an M60 only fires a 7.62/.30 cal round; the M95 fires a cartridge which is almost twice the size on top of being fired from a longer barrel yet still takes two shots to kill a target. I'm not trying to preach that BC2 should have uber-realistic weapons, but I am arguing that the M95 should have clear, definite advantages over the starting recon weapon. Over long ranges, an M95 is definitely going to be more accurate simply because it fires a much more powerful round with a much longer range. The M95 may have a slight advantage towards wounded targets, but usually those aren't the ones you're aiming for. Plus, unless you've already seen someone take hits, there's no way for recon to tell who is injured.
So in the end, you're better off taking the M24 since it fires faster and is more accurate, thus effectively negating any reason to have the M95 in the game at all. And if you're trying to hurt vehicles, you're immensely better off using a mortar strike (which can kill a heavy tank) or just leaving it to anyone with any sort of anti-vehicle or anti-armor weapon. I would argue that due to the increased difficulty of actually hitting targets in this game with a sniper rifle, the M95 with the magnum perk or whatever it is should be able to one-shot a guy at full health. Then the reduced accuracy and fire rate wouldn't be a big deal; you could even make it so you can't take magnum and mortar strike at the same time so there is a serious tradeoff.
*reads thread*
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
I just hate how it looks like it was discovered at the bottom of an empty oil barrel in the desert at the end of a decade-long war.
I am a shallow person.
I never seem to have success with this unless I'm just trying to blow open a wall and am lucky enough to have someone walking past behind it. When I purposely shoot at infantry it just explodes next to them and they shoot me in the face.
The Vintorez is more of a specops rifle, it just happens to be based on a silenced assault rifle with a scope slapped on. I want to give it a shot when I can be arsed to play my recon enough to get it though -- I suck ass at long-range sniping, so creeping around in the bushes and shooting at medium range with a Vintorez sounds more like my style.
...I've played too much STALKER. I do
Nope, everyone is all done with BC2 now. Ok, lock the thread, time for everyone to leave! You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
It really is the closest thing to the soldier in TF2.
Also the SVU is cool and the VSS would be better if I could turn off full auto. I know I can burst but bursting is still too inaccurate.
It just takes practice; I can usually hit a sniper with about a 75-80% success rate. Oh, and if you really want some laughs you should tracer dart them first.
Speed of bullet != Lethality, not necessarily the size of the bullet either. And more powerful rounds with more range does not mean it's more accurate.
As for the ingame advantages Goomba has already stated them. You might argue they're not perfectly balanced but they're pretty clearly there.
Isn't that how you're supposed to play? Like four or five recons sniping from the same spot.
I always feel really bad only playing recon. It's my favorite class, but when half my team is recon and being completely worthless, I sometimes don't change.
uuuuuuuuuugh
I don't play sniper. I just think it's bullshit. I'm usually engineer or medic. So your personal attacks are meaningless and speak worlds of your ability to defend your position. Which is next to nil.
Grenades damage even tanks, even if just slightly they still deliver damage. Try it some time. LMGs do damage bradleys, and mobile AA. Again maybe only slightly, but it's there. Heavy MGs, Rocket launchers, stationary AT, grenades/grenade launchers, other tanks all can damage a light vehicle. So using a single shot bolt action sniper rifle to try to take a whopping what? 10 hp off? That's a bogus argument. It sneezes on light vehicles, hardly deals any damage worth mentioning really. The 95's main benefit towards vehicles should be penetration, not damage.
If you reduce the mobility of the M95 user, they're no longer able to have the same evasive skills the M24 player has. You get improved damage and penetration at the cost of pretty much being fucked in every circumstance that doesn't have you at a distance. It's not tough to close the gap on a sniper or evade them. They're the easiest players in the game to knife.
I'm not saying every gun shouldn't have pros and cons. But their pros and cons should make sense. And decreasing the accuracy on a gun that should be equal or better is ridiculous. Movement penalties, longer reloads, and holding less ammo(which the M24 should be holding more ammo imho) are perfectly acceptable negatives. Look at the M95 in BF2. If I recall that game correctly it didn't even have a magazine. You fired it ONE SHOT AT A TIME. Why not do the same thing here? If it aint broke, don't fix it. Single shot, with an atrociously long period between shots sounds pretty goddamn balanced to me for a gun that deals 20 more damage and is as accurate as an M24. Because the reality is the M24 user would kill targets QUICKER due to faster rate of fire.
So look at the big picture yourself you silly goose.
I don't get this either. In the single player game you can change your ROF. Why not in multi?
fuck recon players! if they were not such a great source of defib paddle points i would be even more upset that 3/4 people play as one. fuck you, you giant waste of tickets.
Still, a good idea for a baseline.
Not all of us are that bad.
Come from behind. Most of the time you will lose against a medic or assault unless you have the drop on them. If you're not fixing a vehicle or blasting a building with RPG's, you should be trying to flank.
Also, got my "Dentist" achievement! Headshot with the drill off a camping *%^#$ recon!
scraping people off the floor is such profitable business, I have done rounds where I top the charts on my side without really killing anything. granted that our team was being stumped into the ground.
I want to try other classes too, but somehow just couldn't let the medic go.
And the G3 looks like an m60 with less bullets, faster reload and 10% less RoF. The m14 is going to be killer with any class that can't take the GOL.
Haha, yeah, ok, because a giant honking bullet moving twice as fast as a much smaller bullet will somehow be less deadly to anything it touches.
An M95 will absolutely be more accurate over longer ranges because the M95 can fire accurately farther than the M24 can even reach (though I don't think those ranges are really present in the game). Plus, a heavy bullet isn't as affected by wind. Plus, firing from a much heavier, more stable rifle platform. Which is irrelevant anyway because sniper rifles are tooled to ridiculous specs with virtually no unknowns to allow for inaccuracy.
Not to mention people don't get "injured" by .50 cal rifle shots, they either die quickly or very quickly. The M24 and M95 are, in-game, functionally almost identical (two hits per kill) save that the M95 is less accurate and fires more slowly. If they boosted the M95 damage against light vehicles and choppers or something like that, okay, maybe worth using. As it is, you're always going to be better off with the fast, more accurate rifle, i.e., the M24.
Use mines, damn you all. It's like free tank kills ALL the time! No really, I lay down a 6-pack in separated 3-mine triangles and it's two almost guaranteed vehicle kills.
BRAWL: 1160-9686-9416
Mortar strikes on friendly defensive positions are like Christmas for medics.
I die enough to make it feasible. :P
I know grenades can. I never said they couldn't. I said they were a slow moving projectile. LMGs, however, cannot. And I said all of those things could. You said, "a host of other weapons". What other weapons?
And what the fuck would reducing the mobility of a M95 sniper do? Mean they couldn't strafe back and forth as much? Reducing the mobility seems like a bigger fucking thing than making it slightly less accurate.
But you're still looking at it as "M24: 2 SHOTS M95: 2 SHOTS LITERALLY THE SAME DAMAGE??" The M95 is perfectly fine at most ranges, so I don't know why you're even so upset about it. It does significantly more damage, it takes off 10% OF A VEHICLE'S HEALTH, and in return it reloads and aims slightly not as good.
Damn, is there an updated one? I'd like to see the differences
That's the point dude. Nothing more. Between reload penalties, ammo capacity penalties, movement penalities, etc. There's tons upon tons of other modifiers they could have chosen. Accuracy is the one that makes the aboslute least sense from a logical stand point. How they came to that conclusion is what makes no sense what so ever.
I was messing around with mines earlier and they are pretty great. However, if someone catches on that you're using them all they have to do is shoot them. Also, mines don't blow up buildings.
They don't last the whole round, but they do last you being killed. I think they'll go poof at some point, but I'm not a a hundred percent sure on that.
At least with BC2, it takes a modest amount of grinding to get the M60 unlocked, and the "overpowered" part of the current M60 isn't nearly as bad as in Vietnam, where it was a hip-fire run and gun murder machine that could also snipe.
I have to admit, I'll be a bit sad when the inevitable M60 nerfing comes, because that was my TO weapon for years in the real world...I'm quite fond of the hog and enjoy using it in games when it's available.
I do! when defending that's my first two lives at least, sprinkling little cookies of death all over the place. I wish it didn't take two lives, but assaults NEVER DROP AMMO.
Sides, he was asking about the engi guns.
Fuck year.