Wait, so the map designers should make the game artificially good for MGers?
were you not paying attention?
This is not an issue about map design, but rather the game mechanics as a whole...
Upvote
0
Wait, so the map designers should make the game artificially good for MGers?
If you open up in a big, obvious spot neatly framed in a window, you're going to get dropped by the first rifleman you fail to suppress.
Wait, so the map designers should make the game artificially good for MGers?
Again, you guys are using the MG improperly. In RO1, you were protected by bullet spread and rifle sway. In RO2, with it's upped realism, you aren't.
If you open up in a big, obvious spot neatly framed in a window, you're going to get dropped by the first rifleman you fail to suppress.
Shoot and scoot. Get some teammates to give you fire support. Don't try to go at MG'er alone. Coordinate your bursts of fire with friendly movements so the other team is more worried about the folks kicking in the front door than the MG'er putting bullets through their windows.
Most importantly, don't stay in one place for too long. It's suicide. If they get a good fix on you, it'll only take a spawn or two before they manage to out-shoot you.
Stop thinking about RO2 like RO1 with better graphics and start experimenting with the new engine. You'll find tactics that work.
Absolutely wrong.
Realism in RO2 is not consistent. It is very realistic for MG handling, but not realistic for riflemen aiming down the sights standing and unsupported. Therefore MG has a large disadvantage. And "setting up in smart places" simply fails, because a machine gun, even in easy to see spot should be able to fend off attacking riflemen easily, many of them. But in RO2 you have to hide in obscure corners to get a shot off before they know where you are. And from what I read about ww2 machine guns they were fearsome deathtraps if attacked head on. And in RO1 it worked. People feared MGs. But in RO2 the MG has to be used like a sniper rifle, hiding in ambushes. And all of it is to blame on too little sway on unsupported weapons, and on the fact that all weapons get a default zoom + shift zoom, which makes shooting targets on range so easy for riflemen that even sniper rifles are only starting to have an advantage on 100+m.
So, Tripwire, go back to RO1 sway, it won't break the game and MGs will be actually useful, instead of being an overheating sniper rifle that is hard to setup.
Absolutely wrong.
Realism in RO2 is not consistent. It is very realistic for MG handling, but not realistic for riflemen aiming down the sights standing and unsupported. Therefore MG has a large disadvantage. And "setting up in smart places" simply fails, because a machine gun, even in easy to see spot should be able to fend off attacking riflemen easily, many of them. But in RO2 you have to hide in obscure corners to get a shot off before they know where you are. And from what I read about ww2 machine guns they were fearsome deathtraps if attacked head on. And in RO1 it worked. People feared MGs. But in RO2 the MG has to be used like a sniper rifle, hiding in ambushes. And all of it is to blame on too little sway on unsupported weapons, and on the fact that all weapons get a default zoom + shift zoom, which makes shooting targets on range so easy for riflemen that even sniper rifles are only starting to have an advantage on 100+m.
So, Tripwire, go back to RO1 sway, it won't break the game and MGs will be actually useful, instead of being an overheating sniper rifle that is hard to setup.
Problem is that almost every spot where you can setup bi-pads without going prone are neatly framed window that makes you stick out so much.
Yeah, I think MGs are fine but suppression should be a little more pronounced. I think the only time we need more sway is if you've been sprinting for a bit and you're catching your breath.
Aren't MGs (portable ones) not a bit inaccurate? I tested this a bit on the new maps with longer ranges and usually a well dug in rifle man wins against a well dug in mg guy every time, unless the mg gets to start firing BEFORE the rifleman can see him. Shouldn't mgs perform better vs rifles? After all MGs fire the same bullets and are a lot heavier than a rifle. In ro1 they were fearsome and accurate, able to lock down areas. But in RO2 the mg spot is very often free which was unheard of in RO1.
In RO2 an mg is basically screwed if it has to face 2 enemies at once unless they are bunched up. And once it starts firing its a giant shoot here sign, both audio and visual.
Therefore I think they are a bit underperforming. I would like to suggest a bit of a recoil decrease. I mean I can fire more accurate shots in the same spot quicker with a semi-auto rifle than with an MG.
Mgs currently get all the realistic disadvanantages, like being bulky, slow to setup etc. But none of the actual advantages of being accurate and deadly at longer ranges.
Adapt or die, mate.
Yea, i adapted. I'm going rambo all over. This is way more useful than an SMG.
It;s probably because the weapons are more accurate overall than in RO1. And because there is 0 sway.
Every shot is a hit from almost any range. So it takes only 1 guy to notice the MGer and shoot 1 bullet at him. So you die fast, almost everytime, without knowing that hit you, and without having the chance to relocate after a bullet comes whizzing by.
MGing is now so risky, it's not worth the effort anymore.
ONly chanse you really have is on realism servers, with no "show from location" thingies.. Finding a incredible hidden posision and stay there and just lock down something. Such as a street in barracs or, down a side in fallenfighters.
Its become way more difficult to be MGshooter, but damn once you find a neat spot. You win every duel
Does real life harsh brutal warfare have default zoom + extra zoom when holding breath?Sway is horribly unrealistic, and a cheap method of "balancing". The problem is not with the game, it's with your tactics. You're spoiled by other games that "balance" this kind of thing to make it "fair" for everyone. It's not fair. War is punishing, brutal, and very difficult. Consequently, there is quite a sharp learning curve for those of us spoiled by easier shooters (myself included). However, the difference between you and me is that I don't immediately blame the engine for my failings.
Adapt or die, mate.
...Do you people even realize what gameplay would be like if machinegunners were the invincible killing machines you seem to think they should be?
For one, a 16 player team will get about as many machinegunners as there are paths on many maps like Apartments. According to some of you, if a machinegunner should be able to, on his own, hold off against "many" enemy riflemen...and then you have your own team full of competent players supporting... Then every map that isn't wide open would be a stalemate. Apartments, for example, would be useless because any competent defender team will just slap an MGer at each entrance and call it a day.
...In addition to destroying gameplay, it still doesn't make sense. Rifles are pretty accurate. In RO2, engagement ranges are pretty short, almost always <100m. Yeah, a decent rifleman is going to be able to hit a stationary target at these ranges, and that stationary target, despite having a machinegun, is going to die when he is hit. You all like to complain about weapon sway, but weapon sway would only really be noticeable when standing...and I for one am very rarely shot by people standing in the open without resting their gun on some sort of cover.
Does real life harsh brutal warfare have default zoom + extra zoom when holding breath?