Why all this hate against MKB42?

[herrhav0k]

I don't believe you've killed moving target at 300m with only your first shot. Crawling on the ground doesn't count.

Kill someone moving properly, sprinting perpendicular to you. With one shot.

And thanks for proving my point for me. The guns don't matter.

What matters is the user and your position. It's certainly easy to snipe people with a rifled gun when no one is looking at you and cannot flank you due to the constraints of a virtual environment.

I have killed perpendicular, running targets, at 290+m with the Mkb42, on semi, with one round. It's not that hard if the person is moving in a consistent pattern, as I'm sure you know. You would believe me if I said it was a K98, wouldn't you? The ballistics are not very different.

I never said that the gun didn't matter. I simply said that killing moving targets at long range has less to do with the weapon, and more to do with the player.

Bottom line: The gun doesn't have a specific niche; it dominates in any area. Long range, short range, sustained firefights. Sniper role, LMG role, rifleman role, SMG role. One weapon system. And, there are 6 of them per Axis team. The Russians have no equivalent.

 

[clench]

I don't believe it was with one shot, sorry. Sure the one shot that hit killed him, but I don't believe for a second you're not missing once or twice before you actually hit. No matter what gun you say you used. And if you did it was pure luck and not something you can do consistently.

I don't believe anyone has ever come close to getting one shot one kill with the MkB @ 300m without using a lot more than 30 bullets and I won't without some video proof.

 

[ZenPhire]

Personally, I never play with it. And I can honestly say that it doesn't bother me. But considering the weapon from the perspective of game balance, objectively the weapon certainly adds overwhelming power to the Axis team.

Simply put, the gun has the ability to place high amounts of accurate penetrating fire in a very short time. The recoil, bullet penetration, rate of fire, and accuracy of the weapon puts it's lethality and versatility far above that of any other weapon in the game. And this is based on objective observation.

I don't mind it because I'd rather out maneuver my opponent. But I can understand why so many people are frustrated by it's presence.

Furthermore, I don't think the answer is to simply limit the amount of soldiers who can spawn with the weapon, because that could still easily result in half the players on the field wielding one (since anyone can pick the weapon up once dropped).

Perhaps more recoil? Maybe limited ammunition? What if soldiers could only retrieve ammo for their team's weapons at ammo supplies? I'm just trying to think outside the box for a solution to balance the weapon.

Whether or not the MKB truly unbalances gameplay or is "OP"... I think we can agree that it's presence can greatly affect game play.

 

[herrhav0k]

I don't believe it was with one shot, sorry. Sure the one shot that hit killed him, but I don't believe for a second you're not missing once or twice before you actually hit. No matter what gun you say you used. And if you did it was pure luck and not something you can do consistently.

I don't believe anyone has ever come close to getting one shot one kill with the MkB @ 300m without using a lot more than 30 bullets and I won't without some video proof.

30 rounds rofl. Clearly we are in different leagues. Sure it's rare that the first shot kills at that distance, but 30 rounds?! Man you must be pretty terrible. I'm just going to stop reading your posts now lol

 

[clench]

30 rounds rofl. Clearly we are in different leagues. Sure it's rare that the first shot kills at that distance, but 30 rounds?! Man you must be pretty terrible. I'm just going to stop reading your posts now lol

No you just fail at understanding my point. I mean that one shot one kill for 30 rounds doesn't happen. Even at static targets I wouldn't believe it for a second.

Yet it seems to be what people imply this weapon is capable of, and it just isn't.

I would be surprised if you got 10 kills per clip on semi auto, even against people not shooting back at you.

 

[Oook!]

That's because rifles ARE accurate at all ranges that are in the game.

There are no distances in the game in which rifles would be inaccurate.

There are still issues at close range with hit reg, it is what has started making me favour the MP40 over the G41 as a squad leader.

As far as game balance goes the MKB isn't as bad as people make out. Personally I prefer the subs on both sides(that is when I'm not using my trusting semi auto rifles)

Any arguements involving MGs are bizarre considering I can quite comfortably head shot MGs using a sub, let alone using the MKB... realistically speaking all the guns are too good in comparison to the machineguns but that's another story.

Historically: Yes there are almost certainly too many of them but I don't know much in this area.

 

[LMAOser]

Not to mention the weapon has a 400m effective range. 300m on full auto.

I'm sure you only fired 43 bullets, right?

I seriously doubt you could effectively hit a human-sized target at 400m with an Mkb in reality. I seriously doubt a lot of people could effectively hit a human-sized target at 400m with a bolt. At that distance, it's not so much the effectiveness of the weapon, but the vision of the shooter. Targets get pretty small at that range, and if the target is moving you can honestly forget about hitting it.

 

[clench]

I'm sorry but I only bring up MGs to demonstrate that it's more about the player than the gun. And again, you kill bad MG gunners in bad positions like windows with your SMG, and so do I. A good machine gunner is positioned in a way that such a thing isn't possible. Learn the maps better, from both sides, to MG properly.

A good player is going to get an obscene amount of kills compared to an average player no matter what gun they are using.

 

[clench]

I seriously doubt you could effectively hit a human-sized target at 400m with an Mkb in reality. I seriously doubt a lot of people could effectively hit a human-sized target at 400m with a bolt. At that distance, it's not so much the effectiveness of the weapon, but the vision of the shooter. Targets get pretty small at that range, and if the target is moving you can honestly forget about hitting it.

You could. If you were trained properly.

And during WW2 there were entire armies of men trained to fire rifled firearms.

Most combat took place at 200-300m. Which is precisely why the Germans designed the MkB with that in mind. Because the K98, with an effective range of basically as far as humanly possible to see without a scope (500m), was overkill for just about every combat situation.

 

[LMAOser]

You could. If you were trained properly.

And during WW2 there were entire armies of men trained to fire rifled firearms.

Most combat took place at 200-300m. Which is precisely why the Germans designed the MkB with that in mind. Because the K98, with an effective range of basically as far as humanly possible to see without a scope (500m), was overkill for just about every combat situation.

I would believe 200m, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest.

 

[clench]

I would believe 200m, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rest.

You can disagree with me all you want, but bullet physics is bullet physics. It's a science.

And RO2 has probably done better than just about any other game, past or present, to demonstrate this. There is no unrealistic bulletdrop to make the game seem more realistic than it is. There are no uncontrollable amounts of sway or weapon kick. Guns are designed to be controllable and deadly from as far away as technology allows.

 

[The Harvester]

The Mkb42 is great for the game, it's weakness should be that there isn't very many of them. At the moment there arn't enough bolts in comparison, which should be able to beat the Mkb at long range (200-300m?) unless the assault rifle wants to drain it's ammo, as oppose to taking far less highly accurate shots.

 

[Sifer2]

I'm sorry but I only bring up MGs to demonstrate that it's more about the player than the gun. And again, you kill bad MG gunners in bad positions like windows with your SMG, and so do I. A good machine gunner is positioned in a way that such a thing isn't possible. Learn the maps better, from both sides, to MG properly.

A good player is going to get an obscene amount of kills compared to an average player no matter what gun they are using.

Yeah that's true. Too bad its really hard to find those perfect spots for MG in this game. At least in my experience so far. You needs lots of stuff. Like it has to be far enough they can't grenade you from behind cover. It has to cover your blind sides. And it has to be overlooking a area the enemy actually wants to travel through or you get no kills. And then you need to be able to comfortable setup in that place. Not many areas meet all that criteria. At least not that I have seen. And even with all of that taken care of there is still that one jack in the box Rifleman that will kill you anyway an piss you off.

That's why people think the MG's suck and I can empathize. Though if they buffed MG's somehow then all you would hear would be people whining about them the next day.

 

[j1yeon]

I've used the MKB a bunch of times since somehow I'm level 85, and it seems to have the killing ability of a semi-automatic rifle, but with a huge magazine capacity, quick reload time, and ability to go full auto with rather little recoil.

The AVT is fine because its kick is absolutely massive. It's not an easy weapon to handle, and loading two 5-rd stripper clips takes a lot more time than replacing the magazine on the MKB.

 

[LMAOser]

You can disagree with me all you want, but bullet physics is bullet physics. It's a science.

Bullet physics are only a part of the equation. Individual skill and internal ballistics play a very important role. .22 rounds can travel over a mile. But that doesn't mean you can hit a target at a mile. Similarly, given my local weather conditions, my handload 8mm rounds that I shoot out of my K98s should drop about six feet with a one hundred yard zero at five hundred yards. With that information, does that mean I will hit it? Does that take into account internal considerations with the weapon or my personal skill? No. I could go out right now with that information, aim exactly six feet high, and miss the target.

Therefore, it's a science, but not all encompassing or complete.

 

[Justin MacDuro]

Yeah that's true. Too bad its really hard to find those perfect spots for MG in this game. At least in my experience so far. You needs lots of stuff. Like it has to be far enough they can't grenade you from behind cover. It has to cover your blind sides. And it has to be overlooking a area the enemy actually wants to travel through or you get no kills. And then you need to be able to comfortable setup in that place. Not many areas meet all that criteria. At least not that I have seen.
.

And the best is that when you find that kind of spot probably you will find that you can't dor some strange reason deploy your MG in that place or that you can only position it in one exactly place without get thousand of times the "can't deploy here" message ... a messege that is usally a death sentence becasue while you are triying again and again to place your MG an smart enemie will see you placing a shot in your head .


RO2 Mg system is not , sadly , RO1 MG system ... it's a pain !

 

[clench]

For everyone complaining about the MkB, you need to ask yourself this.

Do you want realistic guns or a perfectly balanced game?

We can't have both.

 

[black8888]

the mkb42 is fine if the soviets get kalashnikovs to go up against it otherwise it doesn't belong because every other gun is already superior to its soviet counterpart

 

[Unorthadox]

For everyone complaining about the MkB, you need to ask yourself this.

Do you want realistic guns or a perfectly balanced game?

We can't have both.

Most are not asking for both.

They want a realistic number of Mkbs. It would not only be historically accurate, but would "balance" the game aswell.

 

[Jammybee]

For everyone complaining about the MkB, you need to ask yourself this.

Do you want realistic guns or a perfectly balanced game?

We can't have both.

The MKb is highly unrealistic. Its portrayed in a game set in Stalingrad. There would of been ~100 in 1942 with about 4 million men on the eastern front. How common should it be?