1 10 11 12 13 14 Previous Next 183 Replies Latest reply: Mar 10, 2012 8:17 PM by marcusbwilliams Go to original post RSS
  • 110. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    malditor

    You have to take into account the amount of time it takes to get the kill, and on average, the type 95 will take less time than the mk14 to kill because of the number of trigger pulls. Regardless, I'm the type of player that uses multiple guns, because I'd rather feel comfortable picking up a random weapon from the ground than run scavenger.

  • 111. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    kourtvizion

    Yeah I am with you.  I am not a primarily a Type 95 user as yet.  Way too early to fall in love with any one gun. Although I do like the feel.  Right now I am in the 1000-2000 kill range with 3 or 4 guns.  Testing the waters.  Whatever I pick up I try out.

     

    I have taken into account all the information in the graph included in strategy guide.  Would you like a copy so your information can be a little more factual? I can upload a jpeg for you.

  • 112. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    Ok can we please take the actual statistics into account here everyone is saying that this weapon is a one burst kill no matter what, at least that is the general gist of it.  This is not true, im sorry if im bursting anyones bubble but its not.  The statistics for this weapon are 2 bullets close range and 5 long range.  Now if you are able to count you will realize that 5 bullets exceeds that which is fired in one burst.  This means it takes two bursts to kill a target at range, now lets compare this to other assault rifles.  Most of the other assault rifles, take 4 bullets to kill at long range, this combined with the fact they are fully automatic helps to balance everything out.  And before anyone whines about me being a type 95 "try hard" I'm not, yes i do use the weapon, however i also use the m4a1 and the acr depending on the map.  So please before you post all of these rage comments take the actual statistics into account.

  • 113. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    nuttin2say

    malditor wrote:

     

    I don't agree with someone being able to fire 3 shots with mk14 faster than a rapid fire t95

     

    They don't have to fire 3 shots faster than a rapid fire Type 95.

     

    In a sterile comparison between the two guns, the assumption is made that a semi-automatic weapon fires as fast as the mechanical parts can move - not how fast a human being can pull the trigger repeatedly. Otherwise you'd never get any idea of what the fire rate of a semi-automatic weapon.

     

    Nonetheless, a sterile comparison does not matter because there are no sterile situations in-game. The Type 95 player may get all three rounds into the MK14 player, he may not. But the MK14 player only has to get to rounds into the Type 95 player.

     

    For some players, getting 2 rounds into an opponent with two pulls of a trigger on a semi-automatic weapon is easier than getting 6 rounds in the general direction of an opponent with a burst fire weapon - regardless of rate of fire.

     

    Whether or not all players feel that way or can do it has nothing to do with game balance.

  • 114. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    nuttin2say

    malditor wrote:

     

    You have to take into account the amount of time it takes to get the kill, and on average, the type 95 will take less time than the mk14 to kill because of the number of trigger pulls. Regardless, I'm the type of player that uses multiple guns, because I'd rather feel comfortable picking up a random weapon from the ground than run scavenger.

     

    That's a horrible argument. On average???

     

    See, that's the problem with these stupid "this gun is OP" arguments. You can't make the argument based on an average because some players average 20 kills per game and others average 8 kills per game.

     

    The amount of time in a game is pre-determined. So if a match is 10 minutes for the 20 kill guy, its 10 minutes for the 8 kill guy, as well. And there is NO assurance both will use the same gun, Type 95 nerfed or not, the entire 10 minutes.

     

    The end result is the magic question:

     

    exactly what is the average time it takes to get a kill with a Type 95?

     

    And that leaves begged to be asked:

     

    exactly how long is the average time to get a kill with ANY aspect of the game?

     

    So that both questions demonstrate why you can't use only a few of the statistics in these comparisons - you have to consider the ENTIRE picture of the gun.

  • 115. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    The type type 95 is one of my favorite weapons so far. I don't see much wrong with it, it can take upto two burst fires to take down someone unless it's a headshot. You need to be hell accurate to pull off two spot on bursts or even one to get the kill. If not you just die... If they nerf this gun then they seriously need to take into consideration nerfing all the sniper rifles that are one hit kills...

     

    I can't see them nerfing a burst fire weapon and not nerfing sniper rifles. I mean the main sniper rifle I see people quickscoping ohk's with is the barret and that's semi auto, it has a faster refire speed than the type 95 and kills in just one bullet. If any weapon is OP in this game it's the sniper rifles that pull off ohk's.

  • 116. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    malditor

    On average is how they look at statistics. I don't understand how you think that's a horrible way to look at something. In other words, the average player in an average game will take less time on the average to kill with a type95 than the mk14. That doesn't make the gun overpowered as that basically holds true for any weapon in the game short of handguns...

  • 117. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    First off I am not a "SMG hipfiring noob" I believe I have one class with an SMG and it had dead silence pro on it.  Secondly the reason why I hate on the Type 95 is because with a strong connection no matter where it hits the person you can get a one burst kill everytime.  And amazingly somehow people have learned how to curve their bursts around corners and hit me. 

  • 118. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    Everything in the game is overpowered if used correctly. You have to find what works for you. I was an ACR/Famas Whore in Mw2, I could do much better with than than I could with an UMP. My brain simply wasn't wired to handle the gun, It felt wrong. In Cod4, All I used was the 2 Ak's and the 2 bolt snipers. Why? Because they felt right. In cod2, I whored the bolt actions, the scopeless ones to be precise.

    Sometimes you need to mess around a bit. I've yet to run into something in MW3 that I can't counter, Including the type-95. Across a map, a type 95 takes 5 bullets to kill. More than the FAD.In cqb, It's clunky. It's niche is medium where it can 3 shot with perfect accuracy. When I use this gun, I don't feel comfortable moving into tight spaces without my FMG out.

    Mess around with other guns. G36c with Kick is a laser. On other guns, like the Acr, kick doesn't do anything. It's only been out for a week. Give it time.

  • 119. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    nuttin2say

    Yeah, it is a horrible way to look at something.

     

    You're demanding that every weapon perform exactly the same - ON AVERAGE.

     

    That ruins the game. It has totally ruined the series.

     

    It takes skill to get to higher levels and prestige faster than the AVERAGE player. I want a game that works that way. I don't want to jump into a game where a level 1 guy has access to the same weapons, equipment, perks, etc that I have. There is no satisfaction in that. At all. Zero. None. Nada.

     

    So how does that relate to this discussion?

     

    Who gives a rat's azz whether or not the Type 95 is OP???

     

    I get satisfaction out of running out of ammo in whatever gun I use and having to pick up the FIRST available gun I come across. That might mean I start with a Type 95 ... and wind up with a pistol of some sort.

     

    But if I can survive with that pistol long enough to pick up an AK 47 next, then I am having fun.

     

    I wish you people would go play Halo or something else - go play BF3.

     

    What made COD4 MW1 a success was the fact that there was NO weapon balance in the game. There was no PERK balance in the game. You either figured out which weapons and perks worked for you or you got slaughtered, pure and simple.

     

    Figuring that out was the first part of what made the game successful. That took ingenuity from the player and it was huge step forward in gaming in general.

     

    The other part of what made COD so popular was that above all else - the player actually had to THINK and successfully read what moves other players were going to make.

     

    Having guns that all perform the same - ON AVERAGE - removes the necessity to do that.

     

    It DUMBS DOWN the game.

1 10 11 12 13 14 Previous Next