46 Replies Latest reply: Mar 24, 2010 11:22 AM by CODfanboy2k9 RSS

How bad MW2 really is.

Llamamaster3
I know that I am going to get a lot of fanboys hating me for hating on what they consider to be IW's gift to the world and what replaces religion for some of you. A lot of these problems would've been taken care of if IW had held a beta like a lot of other successful games. I mean really, you had it in the first MW, why not the second one? I'll type in terms that even a MW2tard can understand.

1) There are a HUMONGOUS amount of glitches that lead to people exploiting them and then sharing them to everyone and thus ruining the game.

2) The weapons aren't balanced at all. The very very high strength and accuracy of the burst fire weapons.(FAMAS, M16, Raffica) They shouldn't be able to kill someone faster than any other gun, because most of the guns in the game use the same freaking ammo. The high recoil on all of the SMG's make them a lot harder to use than the first game and assault rifles apparently have pinpoint accuracy when rapid fired (ACR). My favorite was the first nerfing of the dual 1887s, that was the smartest thing IW has done with this game. But the idiots listened to dumb fans and decided to unnerf them.

3) All of the connectivity issues. They give it to whoever is in the lobby first, not to who actually can host well this still is going on after how many months of the game's release?

4) All of the moderators and trolls in these forums. There really isn't a communtiy because of them. People wonder why MW doesn't have a good community, it's because they follow everyone around and ban every little thing that they can because they have a personal squabble or because of the really dumb forum rules.

I'm not going to lie, this will probably be taken down before a lot of people see this because of these trolls. I hope that some people do see it and actually take a look at the game and see that it is not as great as they think it is.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    juggernawt
    your title makes this thread look like crap

    gotta agree with you on the gun argument though, if its a sub machine gun it should have less muzzle blast and therefor less reciol..and those burst weapons are just the cheapest at close range when they kill faster than even rapid fire+stopping power SMGs
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Meechoc
    Actually its people like you that ruin the game, more people that complain the more other people follow the complains because they can't stand they been outplayed (if its the case), or they tend to just ***** about everything everytime the die (just watch closely to how your friends die and you will see what i mean). You didnt see anyone complaining about the game for the first 2 months until these bullshit players just plain all out suck and wants to ruin the game by glitching, and complaining.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    TheFinalBob
    lol when did they 'unnerf' the 1887s?
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    KannibalKittN

    Meechoc wrote:

     

    Actually its people like you that ruin the game, more people that complain the more other people follow the complains because they can't stand they been outplayed (if its the case), or they tend to just girl about everything everytime the die (just watch closely to how your friends die and you will see what i mean). You didnt see anyone complaining about the game for the first 2 months until these bullshit players just plain all out suck and wants to ruin the game by glitching, and complaining.





    brah im complaining too but im a f***ing beast. 1.09 KD with a 1.01 WL ratio.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    BeastOfFate
    I'm going to ******* quit if I get another Shitrow round where everyone on the other team is using Doucheweight Fagathon and Assmando. I'm so ******* sick an tired of these ******** who think they're sooooo skilled by running around douching it up at 40 km/h while knifing from 50 feet away and spraying everyone to **** with their overpowered dUMPs.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    juggernawt

    I'm going to *** quit if I get another *** round where everyone on the other team is using Doucheweight Fagathon and Assmando. I'm so *** sick an tired of these ******** who think they're sooooo skilled by running around douching it up at 40 km/h while knifing from 50 feet away and spraying everyone to *** with their overpowered dUMPs.



    you really know how to live up to that sig of yours...you couldve posted this message on any other board and it would have made just as much sense.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Llamamaster3

    kkleites wrote:

     

    I'm going to ******* quit if I get another Shitrow round where everyone on the other team is using Doucheweight Fagathon and Assmando. I'm so ******* sick an tired of these ******** who think they're sooooo skilled by running around douching it up at 40 km/h while knifing from 50 feet away and spraying everyone to **** with their overpowered dUMPs.



    Amen to that.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Prowler10251989
    1887's were unnerfed

    I think that shows your credibility

    Shouldn't you be playing Battlefield instead?
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    xtmx Famas
    Well, i've got a few things to say:

    FIrst, the game does have A LOT of issues. But if you enjoy competitive gaming(Like myself), this is basically the only option right now. Bad company 2 is a very good game, but lacks the competitive community. I also think people over exaggerate the glitches. The ONLY time i've EVER had trouble with glitches was back in the care package days, which was, I have to admit, REALLY REALLY annoying. In search, I rarely run into any of the problems you listed; I don't have issues with guns(except the laser beam) and I think SMGs are actually very good. Try playing SnD or just try to ignore the issues.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Spartan_Throne
    Ok, good for you. But if you really think those things, then why are you on here preaching to a non-existant community, and why are you still playing it?
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Llamamaster3
    Just curious to see how fast the moderating trolls would take down this thread. I also have stopped playing it but was wanting to return to it because of the map pack. Unfortunately they overpriced it by 50% and so I will not return to it.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    o0 KEV1N 0o

    xtmx Famas wrote:

     

    Well, i've got a few things to say:

    FIrst, the game does have A LOT of issues. But if you enjoy competitive gaming(Like myself), this is basically the only option right now.


    I lol'd.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    famas 47
    i disagree with you, m16, famas, and especially the raffica aren't overpowered, since these guns are burst fire, if you miss one burst, u are vulnerable and and the guy you are shooting at has enough time to kill you, i slightly agree with the smg's, they are harder to use than in the first game but they are still very good weapons, they might have more recoil but since they are meant for close combat, the recoil shouldn't be a problem, and lastly, wat are u talking about,the 1887's were never "un"nerfed, it was a glitch when you have bling 1887's with akimbo and fmj, they go back to their original range before the patch, that was obviously a mistake from IW, but they later correct their mistake and patched it again to nerf the bling 1887's
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Marine Raiders
    try akimbo p90's their loads of fun coupled alonged with akimbo usps
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    xtmx Famas
    @Kevin

    Go ahead and laugh, but no matter how you view it, it's getting more and more popular every day. And sometimes it's fun to have a challenging game that actually requires tactics and a bit of teamwork to win rather than blowing through pubs. Whatever though, to each his own I suppose.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Llamamaster3

    famas 47 wrote:

     

    i disagree with you, m16, famas, and especially the raffica aren't overpowered, since these guns are burst fire, if you miss one burst, u are vulnerable and and the guy you are shooting at has enough time to kill you,



    Um, did you see how fast you can fire the bursts if you pushed down the right trigger as fast as you can?
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.

    xllamamanx wrote:

     

    Just curious to see how fast the moderating trolls would take down this thread.



    Calling people trolls after admitting you made a thread for the sole purpose of letting people flame you until it got locked?

    It's tough to take you seriously, despite the legitimacy of some of your concerns.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    o0 KEV1N 0o

    xtmx Famas wrote:

     

    @Kevin

    Go ahead and laugh, but no matter how you view it, it's getting more and more popular every day. And sometimes it's fun to have a challenging game that actually requires tactics and a bit of teamwork to win rather than blowing through pubs. Whatever though, to each his own I suppose.


    I play GameBattles with a team, no Deathstreaks, no Killstreaks, no Grenade Launchers etc. And I play pubs. Neither are very competitive IMHO. It's waaaaay too random to be competitive.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    xtmx Famas
    @ Llama

    The m16 has a delay between bursts, and the famas is almost never a 1 burst kill. And, as stated above, if they miss a burst and you can't kill them, it's a personal issue, not one related to the guns.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    iKillYoutwice
    You can tell how much lag is in the game by people thinking the Famas doesn't kill in one burst.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Prowler10251989
    ^

    FAMAS never a one burst kill?

    I bet to differ.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    xtmx Famas
    Read, prowler. I said "Almost" and that is at range. I get 1-bursts MUCH more often with my m16 as opposed to the FAMAS. Maybe it's my luck, though.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Elz
    The famas or m16 can become 1 burst kill just by adding stopping power and fmj I use them as sniper rifles. :D  But the arc is still the best gun for long range combat I think.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    oWISEGUYo
    When did they unnerf the 1887's. Did I miss something
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    AssassinatorPie
    actually, all of the assault rifles, excluding the SCAR-H, FAL, and AK-47 all use the same ammo

    but when you run over them, you don't pick up ammo like in COD4, which was a little unrealistic with different magazine shapes.

    but now in MW2 if you have an M16 with a red dot sight, you CANNOT pick up the EXACT same rifle that is using an HBS or an ACOG.  only when you have the same attachment.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Llamamaster3

    xtmx Famas wrote:

     



    The m16 has a delay between bursts, and the famas is almost never a 1 burst kill. And, as stated above, if they miss a burst and you can't kill them, it's a personal issue, not one related to the guns.



    Umm, not a very long delay for the M16. For killcams, when on the lower levels, I will stand behind someone on the final killcam and fire exactly one birst into the guys chest and everytime I do that, it is exactly one burst with stopping power.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    iKillYoutwice
    M16 and Famas do the exact same damage, 40-30.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    xtmx Famas
    If you are at point blank, then yes, it's a 1-burst. If you run into a burst gun at point blank and your using an automatic, dropshot. When your ANYWHERE near your opponent, dropshotting is ALMOST always a guaranteed win in a gun fight(assuming you can aim).
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    AssassinatorPie
    the M16 has 40-30 damage, with stopping power, the gun will kill in 2 shots and then the 3rd bullet will pass through.

    the FAMAS does 40-30 damage, and with stopping power it will kill in 2 bullets.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    xtmx Famas
    That's according to stats. Unfortunately, the stats in this game are not very accurate in my experience. I get 1-bursts maybe 90% of the time with my m16 while only 30% with my famas.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.

    xtmx Famas wrote:

     

    The m16 has a delay between bursts, and the famas is almost never a 1 burst kill.



    Judging from your username, you're fairly biased on this issue, but maybe a few facts will set the record straight.

    <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://denkirson.xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/">http://denkirson. xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/</a><!-- m -->

    Above you will fine the bullet damage over a distance for both the M16 and the FAMAS.  40-30 for both, with the FAMAS having a slightly longer range, but the M16 possessing a quirk with the Holographic Sight that makes its burst tighter, improving accuracy despite its apparent disadvantage.

    Now, base player health is 100 in Core gametypes.  This means that it takes one burst at close range for both guns.  At a distance, it takes four bullets, but both cases assume you don't land a headshot with any bullet in the three round burst.  One headshot in that burst makes the weapon a one burst kill.

    40 + 40 + (40*1.4) = 136 damage (kill)
    30 + 30 + (30*1.4) = 102 damage (kill)

    And there's still a key component missing from the above scenarios; Stopping Power, which is undeniably the most used Red Perk in the game.  Adding that in makes every bullet into a headshot (1.4x multiplier) making a full burst a guaranteed kill.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Llamamaster3
    I dont understand how people that use the burst fire weapons dont realize that they are overpowered.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Spartan_Throne

    xllamamanx wrote:

     

    I dont understand how people that use the burst fire weapons dont realize that they are overpowered.



    Because they're not.

    It's like saying a shotgun is overpowered because it dominates at close range.

    They have a mid-long range capability and very good at those ranges. At short range they get more difficult to kill with due to the burst fire, provided you miss the initial shot. At point blank, you are looking at having to use a very luck based burst that isn't going to provide the consistancy that an automatic would.

    Replacement automatics that do 40-30 damage are:

    Scar
    Tar
    AK47

    All of which can be devestating at all ranges (in particular the Scar)

    The FAL is a 55-35 (or 55-40 with Holo) weapon, if one gun is overpowered, it's that. If you have a fairly quick trigger finger and you're a half decent shot it can be really devestating. However, that doesn't apply for most people anyway, so the trouble there is avoided, or balanced.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Prowler10251989
    ^ Referring to the FAL

    I'd watch about that logic concerning the FAL, Mr. Toast doesn't seem to think that means anything.

    Yeah the FAL has recoil when you spam it, but a slight pause between shots make's this weapon dead on accurate across the map. It's a good thing that the large majority don't know about it's capabilities because the FAL is very deadly. If you have just a slither of patience and trigger control the FAL is really powerful, and don't give me this crap it's a semi.

    But it's safe to say that the FAMAS is easily the deadliest rifle in the game. So what if the M16 gets a recoil reduction with the holographic? All that means to me is I can now get the rifle to group as well as the FAMAS. I can take the FAMAS, use another attachment, and do just as much damage as the M16 holo and then some.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    mdub

    KanibalKittN wrote:

     

    Meechoc wrote:

     

    Actually its people like you that ruin the game, more people that complain the more other people follow the complains because they can't stand they been outplayed (if its the case), or they tend to just girl about everything everytime the die (just watch closely to how your friends die and you will see what i mean). You didnt see anyone complaining about the game for the first 2 months until these *** players just plain all out suck and wants to ruin the game by glitching, and complaining.





    brah im complaining too but im a f***ing beast. 1.09 KD with a 1.01 WL ratio.



    LOL i needed a good laugh brah!!!! i looked at those stats you that you refer yourself to a "beast". best part had to be "brah"
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.

    xllamamanx wrote:

     

    I know that I am going to get a lot of fanboys hating me for hating on what they consider to be IW's gift to the world and what replaces religion for some of you. A lot of these problems would've been taken care of if IW had held a beta like a lot of other successful games. I mean really, you had it in the first MW, why not the second one? I'll type in terms that even a MW2tard can understand.

    1) There are a HUMONGOUS amount of glitches that lead to people exploiting them and then sharing them to everyone and thus ruining the game.

    I'm not trying to be a fanboy, but glitches are being patched and the 5th patch is coming out during DLC and thats in the first 5 months of the game. Although there are glitches I am pretty sure Activision's greed made sure there wasn't a beta

    2) The weapons aren't balanced at all. The very very high strength and accuracy of the burst fire weapons.(FAMAS, M16, Raffica) They shouldn't be able to kill someone faster than any other gun, because most of the guns in the game use the same freaking ammo. The high recoil on all of the SMG's make them a lot harder to use than the first game and assault rifles apparently have pinpoint accuracy when rapid fired (ACR). My favorite was the first nerfing of the dual 1887s, that was the smartest thing IW has done with this game. But the idiots listened to dumb fans and decided to unnerf them.

    I agree that some guns are overpowered like the M16, FAMAS, and ACR, but just because they use the same bullet doesn't mean they preform the same. Rate of fire, speed of the bullet, amount of recoil, and even how big the barrel is on the gun all have affect on how the gun in real life preforms. These things were taken into effect and as well as "balancing" and that is how guns with the same bullet do more damage.

    3) All of the connectivity issues. They give it to whoever is in the lobby first, not to who actually can host well this still is going on after how many months of the game's release?

    I also agree there are connection issues, but the first part of your second sentence is blatantly wrong. When the required amount of people for the start of game it finds a new host.

    4) All of the moderators and trolls in these forums. There really isn't a communtiy because of them. People wonder why MW doesn't have a good community, it's because they follow everyone around and ban every little thing that they can because they have a personal squabble or because of the really dumb forum rules.

    This doesn't make the game bad, and mods do what their told by IW so don't blame it on them.

    I'm not going to lie, this will probably be taken down before a lot of people see this because of these trolls. I hope that some people do see it and actually take a look at the game and see that it is not as great as they think it is.
    When did anyone say on this forum this game is great. About 90% of the forum hates the game.



    My opinions on this OP is in bold.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    jefswat

    CoDFan5 wrote:

     

    xllamamanx wrote:

     

    I know that I am going to get a lot of fanboys hating me for hating on what they consider to be IW's gift to the world and what replaces religion for some of you. A lot of these problems would've been taken care of if IW had held a beta like a lot of other successful games. I mean really, you had it in the first MW, why not the second one? I'll type in terms that even a MW2tard can understand.

    1) There are a HUMONGOUS amount of glitches that lead to people exploiting them and then sharing them to everyone and thus ruining the game.

    I'm not trying to be a fanboy, but glitches are being patched and the 5th patch is coming out during DLC and thats in the first 5 months of the game. Although there are glitches I am pretty sure Activision's greed made sure there wasn't a beta

    2) The weapons aren't balanced at all. The very very high strength and accuracy of the burst fire weapons.(FAMAS, M16, Raffica) They shouldn't be able to kill someone faster than any other gun, because most of the guns in the game use the same freaking ammo. The high recoil on all of the SMG's make them a lot harder to use than the first game and assault rifles apparently have pinpoint accuracy when rapid fired (ACR). My favorite was the first nerfing of the dual 1887s, that was the smartest thing IW has done with this game. But the idiots listened to dumb fans and decided to unnerf them.

    I agree that some guns are overpowered like the M16, FAMAS, and ACR, but just because they use the same bullet doesn't mean they preform the same. Rate of fire, speed of the bullet, amount of recoil, and even how big the barrel is on the gun all have affect on how the gun in real life preforms. These things were taken into effect and as well as "balancing" and that is how guns with the same bullet do more damage.

    3) All of the connectivity issues. They give it to whoever is in the lobby first, not to who actually can host well this still is going on after how many months of the game's release?

    I also agree there are connection issues, but the first part of your second sentence is blatantly wrong. When the required amount of people for the start of game it finds a new host.

    4) All of the moderators and trolls in these forums. There really isn't a communtiy because of them. People wonder why MW doesn't have a good community, it's because they follow everyone around and ban every little thing that they can because they have a personal squabble or because of the really dumb forum rules.

    This doesn't make the game bad, and mods do what their told by IW so don't blame it on them.

    I'm not going to lie, this will probably be taken down before a lot of people see this because of these trolls. I hope that some people do see it and actually take a look at the game and see that it is not as great as they think it is.
    When did anyone say on this forum this game is great. About 90% of the forum hates the game.



    My opinions on this OP is in bold.



    My whole problem is isn't that MW2 is better than cod4 or any of that. It is that they knew of all of the problems with cod4 from the forums and they did a very poor job fixing, or left them the same/made them worse. The things they did fix are overshadowed by what they didn't. It isn't really that MW2 is bad, its just that is isn't the step up from cod4 people expected.

    Even the things they got people very excited over like host migration turned out to be a flop. It still doesn't always work and its ruined by the fact that the game still can't find a good host/match people up properly.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.

    jefswat wrote:

     

    CoDFan5 wrote:

     

    xllamamanx wrote:

     

    I know that I am going to get a lot of fanboys hating me for hating on what they consider to be IW's gift to the world and what replaces religion for some of you. A lot of these problems would've been taken care of if IW had held a beta like a lot of other successful games. I mean really, you had it in the first MW, why not the second one? I'll type in terms that even a MW2tard can understand.

    1) There are a HUMONGOUS amount of glitches that lead to people exploiting them and then sharing them to everyone and thus ruining the game.

    I'm not trying to be a fanboy, but glitches are being patched and the 5th patch is coming out during DLC and thats in the first 5 months of the game. Although there are glitches I am pretty sure Activision's greed made sure there wasn't a beta

    2) The weapons aren't balanced at all. The very very high strength and accuracy of the burst fire weapons.(FAMAS, M16, Raffica) They shouldn't be able to kill someone faster than any other gun, because most of the guns in the game use the same freaking ammo. The high recoil on all of the SMG's make them a lot harder to use than the first game and assault rifles apparently have pinpoint accuracy when rapid fired (ACR). My favorite was the first nerfing of the dual 1887s, that was the smartest thing IW has done with this game. But the idiots listened to dumb fans and decided to unnerf them.

    I agree that some guns are overpowered like the M16, FAMAS, and ACR, but just because they use the same bullet doesn't mean they preform the same. Rate of fire, speed of the bullet, amount of recoil, and even how big the barrel is on the gun all have affect on how the gun in real life preforms. These things were taken into effect and as well as "balancing" and that is how guns with the same bullet do more damage.

    3) All of the connectivity issues. They give it to whoever is in the lobby first, not to who actually can host well this still is going on after how many months of the game's release?

    I also agree there are connection issues, but the first part of your second sentence is blatantly wrong. When the required amount of people for the start of game it finds a new host.

    4) All of the moderators and trolls in these forums. There really isn't a communtiy because of them. People wonder why MW doesn't have a good community, it's because they follow everyone around and ban every little thing that they can because they have a personal squabble or because of the really dumb forum rules.

    This doesn't make the game bad, and mods do what their told by IW so don't blame it on them.

    I'm not going to lie, this will probably be taken down before a lot of people see this because of these trolls. I hope that some people do see it and actually take a look at the game and see that it is not as great as they think it is.
    When did anyone say on this forum this game is great. About 90% of the forum hates the game.



    My opinions on this OP is in bold.



    My whole problem is isn't that MW2 is better than cod4 or any of that. It is that they knew of all of the problems with cod4 from the forums and they did a very poor job fixing, or left them the same/made them worse. The things they did fix are overshadowed by what they didn't. It isn't really that MW2 is bad, its just that is isn't the step up from cod4 people expected.

    Even the things they got people very excited over like host migration turned out to be a flop. It still doesn't always work and its ruined by the fact that the game still can't find a good host/match people up properly.



    Why am I quoted?
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    obaboonmano
    stop moaning an get a life you nerd

    enuf said
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.

    Prowler33 wrote:

     

    I'd watch about that logic concerning the FAL, Mr. Toast doesn't seem to think that means anything.



    Blind hatred and ignorance.  Typical post from you.

    <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://denkirson.xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/">http://denkirson. xanga.com/715966769/modern-warfare-2/</a><!-- m -->

    Referring back to weapon stats, look at the "fire time" stat for the M16/FAMAS (.065 seconds between each bullet) and the FAL (0.095 seconds between each bullet).  The FAL has a firing cap placed on it in this game, unlike the semi-automatic weapons in CoD4.  This means that there is a time delay between each bullet in the weapon.

    Now, the two weapons have very different damage charts.  55-35/40 for the FAL (Non-Holo/Holo damage) and 40-30 for the M16/FAMAS.  Looking at these stats, in a burst rifle vs FAL matchup, there are a number of possibilities that can occur.

    Close Range:
    Both users have Stopping Power- FAL: (55*1.4 = 77 damage)  Burst: (40*1.4 = 56 damage).  Both are two shot kills.  The burst weapons have a .065 delay between bullets, while the FAL has .095, assuming the user is matching the firing cap exactly; any more and trigger pulls are wasted, any less and the fire time increases.  Burst weapons win.

    FAL Stopping Power user lands a headshot: One hit kill for them.  In the tiny range the FAL has for maximum damage compared to the burst weapons, this is difficult to pull off, and rewards the skilled player who can get a headshot in close quarters against a burst weapon.  FAL wins if the user is skilled.

    FAL without Stopping Power headshot: Two shot kill.  The bursts can land a two shot kill with Stopping Power to anywhere on the body.  Burst weapons win.

    Both without Stopping Power: Burst weapon fire time to land three body shots for a kill: .195.  Time for the FAL to do the same: .190, assuming the user is matching the max fire rate.  Burst weapons win except against someone with pitch perfect timing (or a well tuned mod that matches the fire cap).

    Long Range:

    Both with Stopping Power: Two different versions of this.  The FAL user without a holo sight will lose (35 *1.4 = 49, 3 shot kill) against a burst (30 * 1.4 = 42 damage, 3 shot kill) since the burst has a faster fire rate.  Headshots change them to two shot kills.  However, the FAL with the Holographic Sight becomes a two shot kill at a distance, with headshots not being a factor.  Burst wins unless the FAL user equips a specific attachment.

    Burst with Stopping Power: Burst obviously wins.  .195 for all three bullets vs. .285 for the FAL

    FAL only has Stopping Power: FAL user firing perfectly in tune with the firing cap kills in .190 seconds with Holo sight.  Burst kills in .395 without Stopping Power or a damage enhancing attachment at it's minimum damage range (farther than the FAL's for both the M16 and FAMAS).  This also assumes that the burst user doesn't land a single headshot with the three bullets.  FAL wins assuming the burst weapon user is incompetent and the two are firing from a very long range.

    Neither have Stopping Power: 4 shot kill with burst. .195 + .2 seconds (time between each burst) = .395 seconds.  3 shot kill with FAL in .290 seconds, assuming user is at the firing cap.  Full one tenth second delay for the burst.  FAL user wins.

    So the FAL beats the burst consistently in just one case (long range, neither with Stopping Power), and you still want to claim that it's overpowered?  Take your ignorance, immature insults, and mindless flaming and spamming of this forum somewhere else.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    ViXeN123

    xllamamanx wrote:

     

    I know that I am going to get a lot of fanboys hating me for hating on what they consider to be IW's gift to the world and what replaces religion for some of you. A lot of these problems would've been taken care of if IW had held a beta like a lot of other successful games. I mean really, you had it in the first MW, why not the second one? I'll type in terms that even a MW2tard can understand.

    1) There are a HUMONGOUS amount of glitches that lead to people exploiting them and then sharing them to everyone and thus ruining the game.

    2) The weapons aren't balanced at all. The very very high strength and accuracy of the burst fire weapons.(FAMAS, M16, Raffica) They shouldn't be able to kill someone faster than any other gun, because most of the guns in the game use the same freaking ammo. The high recoil on all of the SMG's make them a lot harder to use than the first game and assault rifles apparently have pinpoint accuracy when rapid fired (ACR). My favorite was the first nerfing of the dual 1887s, that was the smartest thing IW has done with this game. But the idiots listened to dumb fans and decided to unnerf them.

    3) All of the connectivity issues. They give it to whoever is in the lobby first, not to who actually can host well this still is going on after how many months of the game's release?

    4) All of the moderators and trolls in these forums. There really isn't a communtiy because of them. People wonder why MW doesn't have a good community, it's because they follow everyone around and ban every little thing that they can because they have a personal squabble or because of the really dumb forum rules.

    I'm not going to lie, this will probably be taken down before a lot of people see this because of these trolls. I hope that some people do see it and actually take a look at the game and see that it is not as great as they think it is.



    Get ready to be flamed. LOL Anyway, I generally agree with most of your points. The game is seriousls flawed and the community is.... Well, embarassing would be the best way to describe it. The CS community wasn't exactly anything to brag about but even it was better than what we have here.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Judgementday
    The game is horrendous, it's horrible, don't buy it.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    JJmetallica
    Nah, best game ever made mate.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    I love the game - hate the knifers - I don't know why people are always on about the M16 and Famas - I play ALOT of MW2 and don't really see these weapons being used that often.  Mostly SCAR - ACR - M4 - UMP45 - I personally hate the 3 shot burst - either lag or my bad aim but I need more bullets than that.

    lol
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    Prowler10251989
    LOL take my hate somewhere else? You really think I hate you? I just think you're an ass hole but don't take it personally. Dude you were the one being sarcastic qouting me in your signature for the longest time. You pick and choose facts and bits of information and then compile them in a way to make anyone who disagrees with you look like an idiot. Face life moron, people disagree with you, get over it.

    Dude you were hating on me on my very topic I started on these boards because you didn't agree with me. My first topic was concerning that people were going over the top with the 1887's and you acted as if I'm some sort of scrub even though I clearly spelled out my position on them. You're the one taking a dissenting opinion personal, not me. I could care less what you think, because unlike you I actually play the game. Yet you're still going to sit here and tell the entire community that the FAMAS is inferior to the M16 repeatedly and you wonder why I consider you a troll.
  • Re: How bad MW2 really is.
    CODfanboy2k9
    Topic locked, due to number 4, attacking members of staff, also flaming of other users.