1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next 49 Replies Latest reply: Apr 24, 2013 3:53 PM by gallp13 Go to original post RSS
  • 30. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    gallp13

    And yet BO2 sales are on track to be the biggest CoD in history....go figure

  • 31. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    Bielsalmighty

    Yet in previous CoDs that recoil was comparable to other guns. All guns in this game have low recoil, so LMGs need it in turn to be effective at long range. If you had to burst fire your LSAT at long range, whilst the dude with an M27 could just full auto back, the LSAT would get beat out. What on earth would be the point of 75-100 bullets if you cant even compete at the range you are supposed to dominate?

     

    I love the way that when people see the way in which a weapon is meant to be effective it becomes OP. -_-

  • 32. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    Bielsalmighty

    Yet in previous CoDs that recoil was comparable to other guns. All guns in this game have low recoil, so LMGs need it in turn to be effective at long range. If you had to burst fire your LSAT at long range, whilst the dude with an M27 could just full auto back, the LSAT would get beat out. What on earth would be the point of 75-100 bullets if you cant even compete at the range you are supposed to dominate?

  • 33. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    Bielsalmighty

    Yet in previous CoDs that recoil was comparable to other guns. All guns in this game have low recoil, so LMGs need it in turn to be effective at long range. If you had to burst fire your LSAT at long range, whilst the dude with an M27 could just full auto back, the LSAT would get beat out. What on earth would be the point of 75-100 bullets if you cant even compete at the range you are supposed to dominate?

  • 34. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    Bielsalmighty

    Yet in previous CoDs that recoil was comparable to other guns. All guns in this game have low recoil, so LMGs need it in turn to be effective at long range. If you had to burst fire your LSAT at long range, whilst the dude with an M27 could just full auto back, the LSAT would get beat out. What on earth would be the point of 75-100 bullets if you cant even compete at the range you are supposed to dominate?

  • 35. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    SitRepPro

    the_fallen_pariah wrote:

     

    They have had more recoil in the previous CoD and in BO1 they had less ammo per box/drum. The fact that someone chooses to have 75/100 rounds per drum/box is their choice and should suffer something than the  movement speed drop getting to their suppression point.

     

    They also had much better movement speeds in the previous CODs (MW3 and MW2) such as walking speed, strafe speed, ADS, faster reload times with the ability to increase it further, sprint out times etc and no damage drop off either.  And in MW3 using a supressor didn't affect the range of LMGs but I don't remember what MW2 did with the range for LMGs when using a suppressor.  If LMGs were anything like the ones in MW3 or MW2 people will be using them in BO2 far more, e.g. L86 grip and thermal in MW3 or the RPD in MW2.  Plus in BO1, while two LMGs did have 30 round magazines, they also had ARs and SMGs that didn't have a lot of ammo themselves so 30 round LMGs were still a viable choice but that's essentially because they all retained their 3HK distances at all ranges (I think).  Oh and you could actually shoot down a UAV in MW3 with an LMG quite easily.  Try doing that in BO2.  There was no need to use LMGs to take out air support in BO1 but I find myself using them more in BO2.

     

    I'd take some of the LMGs in MW2 or MW3 over BO2 any day for the reasons above.  Only exception is the M60 in MW3 because the irons are rubbish.

  • 36. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    Bielsalmighty

    Yet in previous CoDs that recoil was comparable to other guns. All guns in this game have low recoil, so LMGs need it in turn to be effective at long range. If you had to burst fire your LSAT at long range, whilst the dude with an M27 could just full auto back, the LSAT would get beat out. What on earth would be the point of 75-100 bullets if you cant even compete at the range you are supposed to dominate?

  • 37. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    SitRepPro

    the_fallen_pariah wrote:

     

    They have had more recoil in the previous CoD and in BO1 they had less ammo per box/drum. The fact that someone chooses to have 75/100 rounds per drum/box is their choice and should suffer something than the  movement speed drop getting to their suppression point.

     

    They also had much better movement speeds in the previous CODs (MW3 and MW2) such as walking speed, strafe speed, ADS, faster reload times with the ability to increase it further, sprint out times etc and no damage drop off either.  And in MW3 using a supressor didn't affect the range of LMGs but I don't remember what MW2 did with the range for LMGs when using a suppressor.  If LMGs were anything like the ones in MW3 or MW2 people will be using them in BO2 far more, e.g. L86 grip and thermal in MW3 or the RPD in MW2.  Plus in BO1, while two LMGs did have 30 round magazines, they also had ARs and SMGs that didn't have a lot of ammo themselves so 30 round LMGs were still a viable choice but that's essentially because they all retained their 3HK distances at all ranges (I think).  Oh and you could actually shoot down a UAV in MW3 with an LMG quite easily.  Try doing that in BO2.  There was no need to use LMGs to take out air support in BO1 but I find myself using them more in BO2.

     

    I'd take some of the LMGs in MW2 or MW3 over BO2 any day for the reasons above.  Only exception is the M60 in MW3 because the irons are rubbish.

  • 38. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    SitRepPro

    the_fallen_pariah wrote:

     

    They have had more recoil in the previous CoD and in BO1 they had less ammo per box/drum. The fact that someone chooses to have 75/100 rounds per drum/box is their choice and should suffer something than the  movement speed drop getting to their suppression point.

     

    They also had much better movement speeds in the previous CODs (MW3 and MW2) such as walking speed, strafe speed, ADS, faster reload times with the ability to increase it further, sprint out times etc and no damage drop off either.  And in MW3 using a supressor didn't affect the range of LMGs but I don't remember what MW2 did with the range for LMGs when using a suppressor.  If LMGs were anything like the ones in MW3 or MW2 people will be using them in BO2 far more, e.g. L86 grip and thermal in MW3 or the RPD in MW2.  Plus in BO1, while two LMGs did have 30 round magazines, they also had ARs and SMGs that didn't have a lot of ammo themselves so 30 round LMGs were still a viable choice but that's essentially because they all retained their 3HK distances at all ranges (I think).  Oh and you could actually shoot down a UAV in MW3 with an LMG quite easily.  Try doing that in BO2.  There was no need to use LMGs to take out air support in BO1 but I find myself using them more in BO2.

     

    I'd take some of the LMGs in MW2 or MW3 over BO2 any day for the reasons above.  Only exception is the M60 in MW3 because the irons are rubbish.

  • 39. Re: How to ruin Call of Duty - Message To Treyarch
    Bielsalmighty

    Yet in previous CoDs that recoil was comparable to other guns. All guns in this game have low recoil, so LMGs need it in turn to be effective at long range. If you had to burst fire your LSAT at long range, whilst the dude with an M27 could just full auto back, the LSAT would get beat out. What on earth would be the point of 75-100 bullets if you cant even compete at the range you are supposed to dominate?