Despite it having low DPS due to lower RPM while maintaining same damage as other early support LMGs, lower RPM along with SLIGHTLY better spread and recoil data allows me to be able to deal suppressive/kill shots at a reasonable distance. And its not like I cannot deal with close range targets with it as well, so I am starting to like this weapon over M249 or Type-88.
100 round magazine also can be problematic at times, as I can't put out as many suppressive shots as other LMGs, but accuracy in sustained fire compensates for it.
Yeah, the M249 has some pretty wild recoil that is a little difficult to tame. That and it's spread at longer distances tends to be all over the place even with burst (though it's leagues more accurate than it was in BF3) when not in bipod mode.
That said, I'm slowly working on unlocking all the carbines and LMG's along with sniper rifles. Has anyone tried the AKS-12u yet? From my brief time at the test range with it, it feels pretty beastly.
Metalzoic wrote:All the LMG's are really good so far.
Actually all the guns seem really good so far. Not a one that doesn't seem to work for me.
I'm in love with the shotguns though. All of them.
I have a love-hate relationship with the QBS. It's very inconsistent for me. I have a feeling it has to do with people using the defensive perk tree though.
MEGA MILK wrote:LMGs are better, but I still don't see much practical reason to use them over carbines in most situations
True, I like them though, stats wise and in the competitive arena, they're at a disadvantage. However, there is that sense of satisfaction when you mow and entire squad down in a long continuous burst with the belt fed LMG's. That momentary feeling of bad assery afterwards is very rewarding IMO.
Then you promptly get owned by an AEK/M16 wielding assault player.
Sym wrote:Meh honetly this has totally killed all my hype for the game
I might pick it up when I can play. I dunno depends on how Im doing on other games.
I know the feeling man. I was like that when BFC2 released with its horrifically game breaking lag and rubber banding. Not to mention the BS "You have been disconnected from the EA servers" or what have you.
It took me roughly 3-4 months before I finally went back and gave the game a chance again. Fortunately, they had made the game playable after that.
Dr. Spaceman wrote:I didn't like the 870 nearly as much as the first shotgun. It doesn't seem to drop guys in 1 shot often enough.
The 870 is what I'm rolling with right now and most of the time it is 8 shells-8 kills. Even if the first doesn't kill you'll get em with the second.
The first shotgun(?) tears it up. The 870 is a cannon. The 3rd is totally badass. The Hawk I've only tried a bit, but it seems as good as the others. The Spas I haven't even used yet. and... I think I need a couple thousand more points to unlock whatever is next.
Still the different chokes kick ass. Slugs kick ass. etc... they play more like they did in BC2, and I'm loving them.
Just checked weapon stats again, and it turns out that LSAT has an increased recoil decrease, which explains its almost laser like precision when in bipod mode and decently accurate up to mid-long range while standing up. PKP is coming up REAL close to being unlocked and I am not sure whether I should jump to it or not. Its got some crazy accuracy plot from what I've seen on the data sheet.
For shotguns, I just dont dare to use them in anything other than domination or TDM (and even when I have played them, I didn't even use it). Everyone's shots are too accurate in PC (easier weapon handling than before makes it worse) to safely use shotgun outside of VERY specific situations. You are most likely going to get gunned down before you even get close to shotgun distance.
PC really sounds like it sucks to play on compared to console. Stormy you should just switch to a new weapon every 100 kills like I do and stop trying to min-max everything.
I am trying to switch over guns as much as possible, with the exception of sniper rifle as scope magnification and sight picture makes too big of a difference (and consistency is key for sniping). And PDW is largely ignored. LoL
I actually have not switched weapons this much in my BF history, which is a good sign that weapons seem to be nicely balanced across the board, with the exception of PDW (shotgun excluded from comparison as its completely other category).
Its kind of sucky situation I am playing in, as Asian players' overall skill level is generally higher than those in west. So, its harder for me to be able to play without worrying about getting owned all the time. Playing in US servers allows me to alleviate this worry quite a bit, but I get into situations where cover fighting is useless, as even if I am popping out and back into cover, the timing is different on opponent's end that he just sees me standing out in the open like a dumbass. So it always has to be kill on fist burst, or get killed.
Metalzoic wrote:PC really sounds like it sucks to play on compared to console. Stormy you should just switch to a new weapon every 100 kills like I do and stop trying to min-max everything.
I'll get bf4 probably cheap on black friday, it's $25 at walmart I saw...along with others, The Last of Us $25...that's about it, well besides Madden. My friend wants to get it on ps3...last year we got the newest madden for xbox for like $20 on black friday
Metalzoic wrote:PC really sounds like it sucks to play on compared to console. Stormy you should just switch to a new weapon every 100 kills like I do and stop trying to min-max everything.
Aren't you on record saying how fucking terrible this game is on PC? Its all over every topic. I would rather play a "inferior" version than not playing at all >_>
Metalzoic wrote:PC really sounds like it sucks to play on compared to console. Stormy you should just switch to a new weapon every 100 kills like I do and stop trying to min-max everything.
Aren't you on record saying how fucking terrible this game is on PC? Its all over every topic. I would rather play a "inferior" version than not playing at all >_>
Couple things
He was talking about Storms post, read it. He said it must suck to play on PC due to the higher skill ceiling. Which is indeed a worthy comment
This is the only game in history this has happened to me in. But continue to think otherwise if that makes you feel better. Its a DICE issue, not a PC issue. BIG difference.
And you are playing the inferior version. No quotes needed. To argue otherwise would be futile.
Classic batman, I loved the old school batman cartoons from the lat 80's through out the 90's. So much nostalgia, that and Kids WB (with Animaniacs and Freakazoid)
But yes, metals irrational hatred of computer gaming strikes again. BF4 is indeed a mess for PC, but it doesn't reflect the PC gaming experience as a whole. There are plenty of absolutely mind blowing great games on PC just like there are many mind blowing great games on the consoles.
It's about preference, and like it or not, there is no denying that PC's are the more powerful machine, but such power comes at greater cost in $$'s and a need to know how to do some very very basic optimization if you wish to get the most out of your machine.
Consoles are very attractive due to everything is in one package, no need to fiddle with anything. Press a button and you're good to go, that is the premise with pre-built computers, you let the manufacturer do all the hard work for you. Thing is, you're stuck with whatever they give you, it's a proprietary system, therefore you can't upgrade it even if you had the know how and wanted to.
Thus the attraction to custom rigs comes into play. With just a little research on the internet, and you can build a good gaming rig on your own. It just takes time and the willingness to invest the effort into learning how to do so.
Of course, I'm sure 90% of ya'll already know this.
I may get a console later, if the games are interesting enough, but since most games are going multi-plat nowadays, I really don't see the reason to do so right now, with an exception to the exclusives.
I'm just poking fun as well...partially. Friendly disagreement, but nothing malicious about it honestly. I played console games for a good portion of my gaming career, mostly due to the fact I didn't have the know how nor the cash to build a good PC. It wasn't until I got older that I finally was able to delve into the PC gaming world and I've never looked back.
I don't hate consoles, quite the contrary, there are a great number of games that are on console only. Thing is, most of the games that I play are available on PC, which in most cases, look better and I handle PC controls better than I do on console. If I can get a better product on PC, and have the hardware to run it, I'm going to get it for the better machine. If I was only able to afford a console (not dissing on anyone here who doesn't have the funds, or perhaps the desire to buy a gaming PC. They're not cheap, and I know people have bigger priorities to attend to) then yes, of course I'd buy the games for a console.
That's not the case with me, so my go to machine will always be my PC so long as my bank account can afford it. This may change when I find the right women and have children with her, who knows.
What bugs me about Metal isn't so much that he doesn't like PC gaming, it's the fact that he ignorantly equates ALL of our woes that we post about our experiences with "X" game to the PC experience as a whole. It's like getting a defective game on console and then judging the entire system based on that game alone or a handful of bad games. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Artimise Flare wrote: What bugs me about Metal isn't so much that he doesn't like PC gaming, it's the fact that he ignorantly equates ALL of our woes that we post about our experiences with "X" game to the PC experience as a whole. It's like getting a defective game on console and then judging the entire system based on that game alone or a handful of bad games. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I love Metal, hes my boy. But I do agree with this.
I honestly cant tell sometimes if hes just trolling, or his hate is really that irrational haha.
Feel free to chime in here Metal and correct me if Im wring.
I mean he made a thread that he always thinks of this guy IRL as the average PC gamer.
Artimise Flare wrote: What bugs me about Metal isn't so much that he doesn't like PC gaming, it's the fact that he ignorantly equates ALL of our woes that we post about our experiences with "X" game to the PC experience as a whole. It's like getting a defective game on console and then judging the entire system based on that game alone or a handful of bad games. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I love Metal, hes my boy. But I do agree with this.
I honestly cant tell sometimes if hes just trolling, or his hate is really that irrational haha.
Feel free to chime in here Metal and correct me if Im wring.
I mean he made a thread that he always thinks of this guy IRL as the average PC gamer.
Lol, the Airforce doesn't let you get that fat...anymore >_>
Sym wrote:Id be worried if any branch of the military allowed you to get fat
Back in the day, the AF's nickname of "Chairforce" was pretty well deserved IMO. After 9/11 that changed in a very big way. Joint operations also helped change the Air Force for the better in many aspects. This was also influenced by our experiences in Korea and Vietnam. If memory serves, it used to be that base security was up to the MP's if they were taken out, the base was essentially easy pickings.
While not everyone is designated for combat, we all still need to know how to at least fire a rifle and must qualify every time we deploy with either an M4 or an M9 if not both. (depends on what is issued to you)
The Army and the Marines no longer have the responsibility of babysitting the AF convoys too, so the slack has been picked up by our boys and girls in the Security forces, while smaller in number than more ground pounding oriented branches, they can still keep up with them. (Can't be a detriment to a squad of marines or army guys/gals. That can cost lives)
Sym wrote:My step dad was in the AF and he said its where all the pussies used to go lmao
Eh, that's macho testosterone talking. For me, it's the promise of an education and learning things that are more applicable to the outside world if I decide to get out after my six years of service (2 down, 4 to go)
The AF is the only branch that offers a community college for its members, it's the only branch that urges and almost makes it mandatory to get at least an associates degree if you want to make anything past Tech Sergeant (E6) within the enlisted ranks. It's provides more opportunities for those who work hard to excel not only in their duties but academically as well.
The Airforce (and the Navy for that matter) puts more focus on technical skills rather than physical. Don't get me wring though, I have nothing but respect for the Army and the Marines, they do things that I know I wouldn't be cut out to do, and there is no one else I'd rather have watching my back in case the SHTF.
However, the other two branches don't offer nearly as many opportunities to better yourself in ways that will help you when you get out of the service, Navy not withstanding. My cousin was in the Marines, and one of my best friends was in the army, they say you can go to school while your in, but the truth is, you're usually so damn busy, you hardly have the time.
In the end, we're all brothers and sisters in arms, and each and every branch of the military has something to offer to support the war effort. We may joke and poke fun at each other, but at the end of the day, we love the Marines, Army Rangers, Navy Seamen and their pilots, and they love our air support and aerial recon. We're all in it together, and that's where it really counts.
Sym wrote:Naw its definitely not macho testosterone talking.....
He was in the AF and said thats how it used to be.
My step dad is not the macho type, so if he says I tend to believe him lmao.
Not saying its currently the same way, but that was the stigma in the 70's when he joined.
Oh no doubt, the Air forces standards were not up to par (physically) with the other branches, that much is true. Like I said before, the "Chairforce" nickname was well deserved, but calling an Airmen a "pussy" couldn't be farther from the truth IMHO.
Not as physically fit and the standards back then were really pathetic, but you know what? The boys on the ground sure loved it when our jets came in to bomb or napalm their enemies.
They weren't really solider s back in those times though
They might be now, since you get proper weapons training and others.
I think basic was like 4 weeks? So if you couldn't pull that off then you probably needed to toughen up a bit. This is strait from his mouth. He did it and said it was pathetically easy.
Ive never been in the military myself( a few reasons why ), but from what I gather the AF used to be a joke. Im glad its not the same anymore though. Did it really take till 911 to shape it up? Thats crazy to me.....
What are the chances of seeing combat in the AF? Next to none unless your a pilot, so I guess they dont really have to be in great shape. I dunno Im just thinking out loud now with no real potential conclusion to this post....
Sym wrote:They weren't really solider s back in those times though
They might be now, since you get proper weapons training and others.
I think basic was like 4 weeks? So if you couldn't pull that off then you probably needed to toughen up a bit. This is strait from his mouth. He did it and said it was pathetically easy.
Ive never been in the military myself( a few reasons why ), but from what I gather the AF used to be a joke. Im glad its not the same anymore though. Did it really take till 911 to shape it up? Thats crazy to me.....
What are the chances of seeing combat in the AF? Next to none unless your a pilot, so I guess they dont really have to be in great shape. I dunno Im just thinking out loud now with no real potential conclusion to this post....
Depends on the job, AF of course is not a front line kick in doors branch. Security forces are the primary AFSC that will likely see combat, those and our Special forces being the Para-rescue or Para-jumpers. Combat weather I think is their title or technician. They actually have to go to army ranger school in order to qualify, these are the guys who coordinate with the ground forces and the jet pilots when they're laser designating targets and stuff like that. So there are a lot more combat oriented jobs in the AF compared to the past.
Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield I feel was where the big changes started, but things really accelerated with 9/11. The Whole joint strike force idea was under way well on into the 90's.
We still get deployed to the middle east, and our airfields still gets shelled from time to time by enemy mortars or rockets. Most of the time they land harmlessly out in a field or something, so there is still a chance of dieing. We've lost quite a few Airmen to IED's or to ambushes in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have EOD specialists in the Air Force as well, since the Security Forces has become more combat oriented than they have in the past. No longer are they just glorified gate guards, they have taken over the "baby sitting" duties the Army and the Marines used to be assigned to do. So Modern Air Force is a lot more independent than it was before.
Not making excuses for the poor standards before mind you, but just stating a whole lot has changed in the past 3 decades or so.
![[BF4] LSAT seems pretty good Empty](https://2img.net/i/fa/empty.gif)
![[BF4] LSAT seems pretty good FP9NG2p](https://i.imgur.com/FP9NG2p.jpg)
![[BF4] LSAT seems pretty good 1205535-southpark_wow2](https://2img.net/h/static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/5195/1205535-southpark_wow2.jpg)
