Suggested Class: Support Gunner

[BenioX]

Spoiler!

Ok, clearly we want a more in depth answer. So here we go. I'm going to answer this with a simple fact about gaming.

Spoiler!

Gaming has become very largely mainstream in the last few years. Back when we were younger when gaming was a much more reclusive hobby for a more select audience, there was no such thing as checkpoints, most games had to be completed in 1 sitting start to finish. Furthermore alot of them had "Lives" meaning it was frequently possible to Game Over and need to start again from scratch. This meant that casual gamers were nearly non existant, because they might have a blast on a game for an hour or 2 but had no intention of putting in the time to actually finish and beat the game.

As gaming evolved things like continues and infinite lives became more common, and the focus switched to challenging gamers in other ways, requiring more actual skill and gaming knowledge to progress through the game. This is where games like Halo (On Legendary), CSS, Metal Gear Solid were born into. It required the gamer to think and learn how to beat the game rather than jsut being all about reactions and timing.

Nowadays it has been realised that games makes alot of money if they are easy. This is because the casual gamer market is made up of a collosal number of people. These kind of gamers are more easily impressed by graphics and action. Easy gratification without having to really think about what they are doing. Take Call Of Duty as a major staple mark.

The problem with this is almost every major game developer has started focus on pleasing this crowd rather than making a truly immersive experience. Story, balance, teamwork, strategy has all gone by the wayside. Its damned near impossible to find even a bloody local coop game nowadays, becasue sadly this online Kill Death ratio mentaility sells.

Finding a game now that has any real depth, where the player has to really analyse the situation and think about what he is doing to overcome his obstacles is few and far between. This last year I think Battlefield Bad Company 2 is the only mainstream game I can say that really focuses on team work and tactics to achieve your goal. Heck alot of times you can actually help your team more by pushing forward to the objective and getting yourself killed. You may have died but it has given your team a chance to move up with you and plant a bomb. Everything else that is good is either a year old or is purely on the Indie scene.

So firstly I'm going to say... don't play Killing Floor if you want a game that doesn't require skill. This game started as a mod for hardcore gamers, and was taken on by TWI, hardcore gamers themselves who made Red Orchestra, another game for hardcore gamers. Why should serious gamers have to give up one of the few games made for them for casual gamers who already have choice up the arse? Just like you have your opinion on what games should be, we have ours, and we don't want to see our favourite game ruined.

Secondly onto my arguement against the Light Machine Gun. This game is about horror. Being scared comes from a feeling of helplessness. Seeing a fleshpound while your not ready for it, and panicing trying to kill it before it kills you, or getting grabbed by a clot while a Scrake is bearing down on you really is what makes Killing Floor such an Expereince.

Light Machine Guns are meant to be mounted on a tripod for stability and is designed to mow down incoming enemies with great efficiency. If you bring in a weapon that can turn everything into mince meat you destroy the terror of the game. It might be in Red Orchestra, but both teams are equally limited in their number and you are playing against humans, not AI, let alone a zombie AI. Zombies can't flank, use teamwork or out maneouvuer an LMG.

Put a litlte bit simpler, there is NO WAY this gun couldn't be overpowered without it being ridiculous.

So there is your intellectual arguement, I didn't feel like typing this all out, but since my point was apparantly non existant I've explained it in greater detail..

I hope now you can see why I feel so strongly against LMG's of all descriptions.

tl;dr :troll:
Seriously, for me tl

 

[Undedd Jester]

Spoiler!

tl;dr :troll:
Seriously, for me tl

Thats kinda my point. If you want the reasons why the LMG is a bad idea, thats it all explained in a nutshell... and it s a bloody big nutshell.

 

[BenioX]

Thats kinda my point. If you want the reasons why the LMG is a bad idea, thats it all explained in a nutshell... and it s a bloody big nutshell.

Good, so whatever you said I agree with you :troll:

 

[C_Gibby]

I hope now you can see why I feel so strongly against LMG's of all descriptions.

Even a wee little bren gun?

+1 for content, btw. :IS2::IS2::IS2:

 

[noupperlobeman]

So you're saying that if a person hasn't fired a type of weapon, that they can't talk about the weapon in question? Guess I can't speak about assault rifles, automatic pistols, double-barreled or over-under shotguns, muzzleloaders, turreted machine guns, sniper rifles, fragmentation grenades, or submachine guns. This part of your post is absurd.


The creatures in Killing Floor are largely emotionless, fearless, raging monsters that are totally unafraid of death or injury.


I don't understand what "info heroing" means, but I assume you mean that you think I get all of my firearms knowledge from Call of Duty, which is a dumb insinuation considering I'm not talking about how an "M16 is totally a burst-fire weapon". Yes, it's true that most civilians don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, or that the SAW can utilize either of those, but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

It's true that my knowledge regarding LMG's is rather limited, seeing as I've never seen nor used one, but I understand their function and basic operation - laying down a blanket of suppressive fire (you don't give a squad member an inaccurate ammo-eating machine gun to someone who's precision shooting). You followed your argument with something extremely snarky and arrogant, which was entirely unnecessary; the information is irrelevant, and the way you put that forward was as if you were telling me off like I should absolutely know everything about the M249 SAW, which is ridiculous and insulting. I put forward the SAW as an example because it's one of the few Squad LMG's I know of aside from the Vietnam-era M60 and a few WWII-era LMG's (protip: I'm not a belt-fed LMG expert).


Being passive about an idea becoming reality is not a reason to not put forward an idea. Yes, I suppose that is partially the idea, the other reason would be to see what the community would like to see, original or not. My train of thought is absolutely coherent.

It is entirely possible that I misunderstood the tone of your post. For that I apologize. I mistook you for one of the guys that believes they know everything about modern small arms because they've logged over 100 hours in call of duty, which you clearly are not.

I am quick to stupid anger when I see forum posters travel that road. I unfairly grouped you in with them without actually paying attention to what was said in your post.

Again, I am sorry.

 

[noupperlobeman]

Ok, clearly we want a more in depth answer. So here we go. I'm going to answer this with a simple fact about gaming. Skip the SPoiler if you don't want to know exactly why stuff like this Erks us so much.

Spoiler!

Gaming has become very largely mainstream in the last few years. Back when we were younger when gaming was a much more reclusive hobby for a more select audience, there was no such thing as checkpoints, most games had to be completed in 1 sitting start to finish. Furthermore alot of them had "Lives" meaning it was frequently possible to Game Over and need to start again from scratch. This meant that casual gamers were nearly non existant, because they might have a blast on a game for an hour or 2 but had no intention of putting in the time to actually finish and beat the game.

As gaming evolved things like continues and infinite lives became more common, and the focus switched to challenging gamers in other ways, requiring more actual skill and gaming knowledge to progress through the game. This is where games like Halo (On Legendary), CSS, Metal Gear Solid were born into. It required the gamer to think and learn how to beat the game rather than jsut being all about reactions and timing.

Nowadays it has been realised that games makes alot of money if they are easy. This is because the casual gamer market is made up of a collosal number of people. These kind of gamers are more easily impressed by graphics and action. Easy gratification without having to really think about what they are doing. Take Call Of Duty as a major staple mark.

The problem with this is almost every major game developer has started focus on pleasing this crowd rather than making a truly immersive experience. Story, balance, teamwork, strategy has all gone by the wayside. Its damned near impossible to find even a bloody local coop game nowadays, becasue sadly this online Kill Death ratio mentaility sells.

Finding a game now that has any real depth, where the player has to really analyse the situation and think about what he is doing to overcome his obstacles is few and far between. This last year I think Battlefield Bad Company 2 is the only mainstream game I can say that really focuses on team work and tactics to achieve your goal. Heck alot of times you can actually help your team more by pushing forward to the objective and getting yourself killed. You may have died but it has given your team a chance to move up with you and plant a bomb. Everything else that is good is either a year old or is purely on the Indie scene.

So firstly I'm going to say... don't play Killing Floor if you want a game that doesn't require skill. This game started as a mod for hardcore gamers, and was taken on by TWI, hardcore gamers themselves who made Red Orchestra, another game for hardcore gamers. Why should serious gamers have to give up one of the few games made for them for casual gamers who already have choice up the arse? Just like you have your opinion on what games should be, we have ours, and we don't want to see our favourite game ruined.

Secondly onto my arguement against the Light Machine Gun. This game is about horror. Being scared comes from a feeling of helplessness. Seeing a fleshpound while your not ready for it, and panicing trying to kill it before it kills you, or getting grabbed by a clot while a Scrake is bearing down on you really is what makes Killing Floor such an Expereince.

Light Machine Guns are meant to be mounted on a tripod for stability and is designed to mow down incoming enemies with great efficiency. If you bring in a weapon that can turn everything into mince meat you destroy the terror of the game. It might be in Red Orchestra, but both teams are equally limited in their number and you are playing against humans, not AI, let alone a zombie AI. Zombies can't flank, use teamwork or out maneouvuer an LMG.

Put a litlte bit simpler, there is NO WAY this gun couldn't be overpowered without it being ridiculous.

So there is your intellectual arguement, I didn't feel like typing this all out, but since my point was apparantly non existant I've explained it in greater detail..

I hope now you can see why I feel so strongly against LMG's of all descriptions.

I don't know how much of this is aimed at my responses, so I'm going to treat it as if it all was. Well thought out post, you obviously put some effort into it .


First of all, there is absolutely no way I could have pulled all of this from "I like guns that take skill to use". You went from few vague statements (that honestly sound like something l4d fanboy would say, but you clearly are not) to an all out multi paragraph synopsis of the video games industry. I hope you can understand why someone would be a little taken back by all this.

Secondly, I think we both had mutual misunderstandings:

-When I saw your post "I like weapons that require skill" I instantly assumed you were a casubad gamer yourself. I have been all over forums all over the web. The only players that talk about themselves having skill are the ones who get high when they see their kill death ratio.

-When you saw my "There goes another gamer talking about skill again" you assumed I was casual. This statement was born out of DISTASTE for the current casual video game movement. Kill whoring call of duty and l4d fanboys are killing the gaming industry, and are the reason why I despise anyone that wants to go on about having skill. Because thats all they do. I am of the opinion that truly skilled and "hardcore" gamers don't need to prattle on about skill, or how hardcore they are.

We both were rather quick to group each other in with our most hated type of people.

You assumed that I am a casual gamer. Again, another assumption that landed us somewhere we really shouldn't have gone. I was born into the video game boom. I grew up playing double dragon, contra, battletoads, and the like on nes. I moved on to computers as soon as I figured out how to use the dos prompt on my dads first dos only computer (about age 5, playing wolf 3d, doom 2, mega race, jazz jackrabbit, and commander keen). I've grown with the gaming industry over the years as well. I completed several metal gears, I've logged many hours on counterstrike, and yes I do own and play red orchestra and a few of its mods (I LOVE red orchestra). I've also dabbled in america's army, Insurgency (its a source mod), and arma 2. Don't lecture me on hardcore gaming without first asking questions.

No one is here to ruin killing floor, and its a bit over the top to assume a new weapon would do so. No one was talking about your "mow everything down" death machine. In effect, I think all people are asking for is an assault rifle with a larger magazine. You know what its effectiveness would be like? Like the flamethrower. And that hardly kills everything, and its not even close to game breaking. Am I way off here? Can you see how this wouldn't destroy our game? If anything it would be just a novelty, and hardly game breaking.



And I'll thank you not to insult my Call of Duty. Modern Warfare and BLOPS have soiled the good name of the series, but take a look at the first one. It was a masterpiece, and hardly casual (it was only on the pc afterall, games don't go totally mainstream casual till they hit xbox). Call of Duty has nothing to do with modern warfare and BLOPS.

EDIT: If you weren't responding to me specifically, ignore all this then

 

[Eureka]

At this point in time, i think an LMG needs to be made.

Why? Because we need to see if it's at all balanced, and if not, how we can go about making it so.

At the moment, we're all debating about theorhetical weapons, we need to see real-world tests to make judgements upon.

This sounds reasonable to me. I wish I had the skills to do it myself.

 

[Undedd Jester]

I accept your point on misjudging your intentions however I still stand firm in my belief of what this will do to the game, and I'll explain why in a moment.

I played CoD4 for over 650 hours, I used to think it was amazing. The thing is it was the first Online Shooter I had ever played. Just like World Of Warcraft was the first MMORPG I ever played I was extremely impressed with what I saw, and was really into it. Having gotten older I have tried some alternative games and expanded my gaming knowledge significantly, and I have realised that both these titels are actually very poor indeed.

CoD Rant in spoiler:

Spoiler!

The fact about Call Of Duty 4 is it seems good because the graphics are crisp, the control is fluent, the customisable loadouts are cool but the actually gameplay is rather poor.

Firstly the game is riddled with overpowered weapons and unfair game mechanics. To list a few: -
- Stun Grenades lock your movement and aim in place. They might as well just take your mouse and keyboard off you for 5 seconds.
- Grenade Launchers are extremely frustrating as they requite no actual aiming or even a LoS to use making them very spam friendly
- P90s, LMGs, Semi Automatic Sniper Rifles are all weapons that players can just spam in someones general direction to get the kill encouraging sloppy play.
- Claymore Mines allow poor players to camp safely in a room with miens either side and simply wait for someone who is actually playing properly to walk into them. They are a total nuisance and ruin the flow of the game.
- Alot of the Perks are frustrating and unrealistic. Annoying for players playing like a soldier actually would. Culprits include Dead Silence and Juggernaut etc etc.
- Kill Streak rewards reduce a players reliance on his own intelligence and ability. Due to the incredible amount of help they give they turn the game more about frag hunting
- Hardcore mode just encourages camping and boring play styles, and further emphasises the problem with Kill Streaks

There is a clan match style mod that eliminates alot of these problems... however they pretty much just try and turn the game into Counter Striek Source anyway. The bits that make Call Of Duty 4 good like Sniper Sway and the screen bouncing when running along to name a couple get removed and we're just left with a bastardised CSS wannabe.

The major problem is regenerating life. Its total horse crap. In theory a player can withstand 100 bullets and still recover to full health with 0 ill effects. It breaks the game because if you wound someone, but get killed first, your effect in that round is drawn down to 0. YOur team is now a man short and you have nothing to show for it. At least in other games if you wound the rest of their team, you have aided your team to some degree. In CoD it doesn't work like this.

I used to like CoD4, but then I bought and played Counter Strike Source afterwards and was totally baffled as to why CoD4 is considered the better game. Even though it was older than CoD4 it was so much more well balanced and fair. You knew you died because you made a mistake or the other guy was simply better than you. CoD4 you died because of some crappy overpowered game mechanic.

I have raged about CoD4 for a long time now, it saddens me that in my mind such a mess of grief friendly poor game design has become the main stake of gaming. I remember reading a post of of someone once in another forum. It went as follows.

"I was in my ICT class where everyone was working but having a discussion at the same time. One of the people nearby to me asked the class "What is everyone doing tonight, I'm going home to play Call Of Duty". I tutted loudly in disporval and everyone in the classroom turned to me as if I'd just raped their children.

And yes these are the same people that 2 years ago would hae scoffed at the idea of ever being considered gamers."

You can like CoD4 if you want to. I personally hate it with every fibre of my being. To me it personifies everything that is wrong with modern gaming.

Anyway back on track with the LMG.

It isn't over the top to assume it would ruin the game. An LMG isn't an assault rifle with a larger magazine. The bullets it fires are a much higher calibre than a normal assault rifle (Enter Candlejack here). Either way they do substantially more damage to their target.

Couple that with a very rare requirement to reload and you have yourself a mow everything down death machine whether you like it or not.

The Flamethrower does leave a trail of death during sustained fire however its damage mostly comes from Damage over Time. It doesn't hit very hard on first contact because there is the afterburn to follow it as well. It works well against small foes but not very well against large foes.

An LMG on the other hand has not damage over time. Its damage would be instantanous and come from a raw bullet. Given the larger bullet size it would have to do much more damage per bullet than a SCAR, and the Scar was nerfed in the last patch for being Overpowered... even with a clip of jsut 25 bullets.

No I remain firm. This would not be a novelty, this would be game breaking, and seriosuly game breaking at that. The only way it wouldn't be is if it did as much damage per bullet as the Mp7, and thats just silly.

 

[Eureka]

Anyway back on track with the LMG.

It isn't over the top to assume it would ruin the game. An LMG isn't an assault rifle with a larger magazine. The bullets it fires are a much higher calibre than a normal assault rifle (Enter Candlejack here). Either way they do substantially more damage to their target.

Actually, an LMG is an assault rifle with a larger magazine/belt feed. In real life, they also tend to have barrels that are easier to replace as the high rate of fire causes much more wear and tear. There are LMGs in real life that fire 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO ammunition, the same as used in the Bullpup and SCAR.

 

[noupperlobeman]

I accept your point on misjudging your intentions however I still stand firm in my belief of what this will do to the game, and I'll explain why in a moment.

I played CoD4 for over 650 hours, I used to think it was amazing. The thing is it was the first Online Shooter I had ever played. Just like World Of Warcraft was the first MMORPG I ever played I was extremely impressed with what I saw, and was really into it. Having gotten older I have tried some alternative games and expanded my gaming knowledge significantly, and I have realised that both these titels are actually very poor indeed.

CoD Rant in spoiler:

Spoiler!

The fact about Call Of Duty 4 is it seems good because the graphics are crisp, the control is fluent, the customisable loadouts are cool but the actually gameplay is rather poor.

Firstly the game is riddled with overpowered weapons and unfair game mechanics. To list a few: -
- Stun Grenades lock your movement and aim in place. They might as well just take your mouse and keyboard off you for 5 seconds.
- Grenade Launchers are extremely frustrating as they requite no actual aiming or even a LoS to use making them very spam friendly
- P90s, LMGs, Semi Automatic Sniper Rifles are all weapons that players can just spam in someones general direction to get the kill encouraging sloppy play.
- Claymore Mines allow poor players to camp safely in a room with miens either side and simply wait for someone who is actually playing properly to walk into them. They are a total nuisance and ruin the flow of the game.
- Alot of the Perks are frustrating and unrealistic. Annoying for players playing like a soldier actually would. Culprits include Dead Silence and Juggernaut etc etc.
- Kill Streak rewards reduce a players reliance on his own intelligence and ability. Due to the incredible amount of help they give they turn the game more about frag hunting
- Hardcore mode just encourages camping and boring play styles, and further emphasises the problem with Kill Streaks

There is a clan match style mod that eliminates alot of these problems... however they pretty much just try and turn the game into Counter Striek Source anyway. The bits that make Call Of Duty 4 good like Sniper Sway and the screen bouncing when running along to name a couple get removed and we're just left with a bastardised CSS wannabe.

The major problem is regenerating life. Its total horse crap. In theory a player can withstand 100 bullets and still recover to full health with 0 ill effects. It breaks the game because if you wound someone, but get killed first, your effect in that round is drawn down to 0. YOur team is now a man short and you have nothing to show for it. At least in other games if you wound the rest of their team, you have aided your team to some degree. In CoD it doesn't work like this.

I used to like CoD4, but then I bought and played Counter Strike Source afterwards and was totally baffled as to why CoD4 is considered the better game. Even though it was older than CoD4 it was so much more well balanced and fair. You knew you died because you made a mistake or the other guy was simply better than you. CoD4 you died because of some crappy overpowered game mechanic.

I have raged about CoD4 for a long time now, it saddens me that in my mind such a mess of grief friendly poor game design has become the main stake of gaming. I remember reading a post of of someone once in another forum. It went as follows.

"I was in my ICT class where everyone was working but having a discussion at the same time. One of the people nearby to me asked the class "What is everyone doing tonight, I'm going home to play Call Of Duty". I tutted loudly in disporval and everyone in the classroom turned to me as if I'd just raped their children.

And yes these are the same people that 2 years ago would hae scoffed at the idea of ever being considered gamers."

You can like CoD4 if you want to. I personally hate it with every fibre of my being. To me it personifies everything that is wrong with modern gaming.

Anyway back on track with the LMG.

It isn't over the top to assume it would ruin the game. An LMG isn't an assault rifle with a larger magazine. The bullets it fires are a much higher calibre than a normal assault rifle (Enter Candlejack here). Either way they do substantially more damage to their target.

Couple that with a very rare requirement to reload and you have yourself a mow everything down death machine whether you like it or not.

The Flamethrower does leave a trail of death during sustained fire however its damage mostly comes from Damage over Time. It doesn't hit very hard on first contact because there is the afterburn to follow it as well. It works well against small foes but not very well against large foes.

An LMG on the other hand has not damage over time. Its damage would be instantanous and come from a raw bullet. Given the larger bullet size it would have to do much more damage per bullet than a SCAR, and the Scar was nerfed in the last patch for being Overpowered... even with a clip of jsut 25 bullets.

No I remain firm. This would not be a novelty, this would be game breaking, and seriosuly game breaking at that. The only way it wouldn't be is if it did as much damage per bullet as the Mp7, and thats just silly.

I never said I like COD4 in my reply to you (although I think its better than the second modern warfare and has some fun to be had still). I said I liked the first call of duty. COD4 is not the first call of duty. The newer call of duties are just cheap knockoffs of the original.

In the original there was no recharging health, grenade launchers, and perks that allow you to have "cold blood". It was you, your guns, and a health bar that remained damaged throughout that entire life.

As per lmgs having higher caliber? In most cases not really. Squad support lmg's like the m249 SAW use the exact same cartridge as an m16 or the SA80 (long version of the bullpup). Medium machine guns like the m240 or the m60 use a 7.62x51mm round which is the same size as the SCAR-H (the ak-47 uses a 7.62x39mm).

Sorry for the info heroing, but I think it needed to be pointed out.

Your main excuse seems to be "it would be bad because it would be overpowered and kill everything". Well obviously for balance purposes they wouldn't create it with the ability to kill everything. It would have similar limitations like the flame thrower. Such as a long reload, low magazine count, and heavy enough so that you couldn't carry anything else with it.

Just because its powerful in real life doesn't mean they can't scale it down for a game. Look at how they treat shotguns in a majority of the games out there. Shotguns with buckshot have an average effective (not max range, but effective) range of about 30 meters. You're lucky if you can find most modern games with a shotgun in it that are effective at all past double arms length.

I respect your opinion about not wanting it in the game, thats cool and all. I just wanted to point a few reasons out why its a little more feasible than some may think.

 

[Undedd Jester]

Actually, an LMG is an assault rifle with a larger magazine/belt feed. In real life, they also tend to have barrels that are easier to replace as the high rate of fire causes much more wear and tear. There are LMGs in real life that fire 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO ammunition, the same as used in the Bullpup and SCAR.

Meh I stand corrected.

Either way the big clip will cause alot of balance problems. You'd have to be talking bullpup level of damage in order for it to not be overpowered, then comes the question why bother to add it?

Commando already does the job of a sweeper class, support covers penetration and hard hitting, Firebug covers cutting down large clusters of foes efficiently.

An LMG perk that isn't Overpowered already has its role filled and simply isn't needed and if it is Overpowered it breaks the game.

Meh, if it will work, it will work, but in my experience in every other game featuring an LMG, I've hated them in every single one. I've said my piece, I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: oh yeah I'll grant you that, not played CoD1, but CoD2 is a great game. Not my favourite, but respectable. Sorry nowadays CoD4 is generally considered the first Call Of Duty

 

[timur]

An LMG perk that isn't Overpowered already has its role filled and simply isn't needed and if it is Overpowered it breaks the game.

What about a single LMG done well and balanced, for a pre-existing perk...

Bren Gun?

 

[Undedd Jester]

What about a single LMG done well and balanced, for a pre-existing perk...

Bren Gun?

As long as it has that nice little box mag with 30 bullets and not a 100 round detachable pan magazine go for it

At least I'm assuming you mean the L4 version, also assuming that the wiki page is actually correct

 

[Vaecrius]

.......does anyone else find it oddly fitting that a thread about machine guns has so many huge, verbose posts? :troll:

 

[BenioX]

.......does anyone else find it oddly fitting that a thread about machine guns has so many huge, verbose posts? :troll:

Ownage :IS2::IS2::IS2:

 

[Benjamin]

I'd say unless it has a clip with about 100 rounds of bullets it'll just be the same as the ballpup or any other machine gun.

 

[C_Gibby]

I'd say unless it has a clip with about 100 rounds of bullets it'll just be the same as the ballpup or any other machine gun.

Unless it operates and is handled completely different.

 

[Benjamin]

Unless it operates and is handled completely different.

How so? It's a machine gun, fires rounds of bullets, stored in a clip. How will holding the gun any differently make it unique.

 

[C_Gibby]

How so? It's a machine gun, fires rounds of bullets, stored in a clip. How will holding the gun any differently make it unique.

You obviously didn't read the thread. /brphoenix moment

The magazine is similar to the bullpup's in size plus you can only "aim" by bringing the gun to a hipfire stance and moving at walking speed, alternatively you can hold the gun in some sort of withdrawn stance, making you unable to fire but able to move at walking speed. It's a little similar to the way that you use the LAW. That is what makes it differ from all the other commando weapons.

 

[BenioX]

You obviously didn't read the thread. /brphoenix moment

tl;dr moment? :troll: