Well said. If the kids had there way all guns would be the same expect they would look different. Also you would have to play exactly how they want you to, and they could use guns, but to keep t hem from complaining you would have to shoot pink marshmallows, but they cant be lethalor they would just complain and get the marshmallows nerfed.
This gun is weak, at least compared to other fully automatic assault rifles. Before you jump out of your seat and tell me about your 3.0 K:D ratio using this weapon, remember that good players with this weapon will do well, but good players can do well even if they only had a handgun to work with.
The misleading thing about the ACR 6.8 is its high damage rating. The reason this is misleading is because it does the same exact effective damage as the M4A1: three bullet hits anywhere on the body or limbs will kill an enemy player. One headshot with either weapon is not worth a kill, but a headshot and another hit is.
This means that despite the differences on the damage meter, the M4A1 and the ACR 6.8 have the exact same damage. When you consider that the M4A1 has a better firing rate, the same range, better accuracy, less (or the same) kick, and a faster reload time, and the ACR 6.8 has no advantages over the M4A1 – why would you ever use an ACR 6.8? You wouldn’t, unless you did not know any better.
The real weakness of the Type 95 is that it can suffer when you are in range of Sub Machine guns but too far to accurately shoot from the hip. It has less accuracy and range than the M16A4 but the same amount of effective firepower.
If you find yourself up against 2, 3 or more guys a burst fire gun is not going to win the battle.
They have the weakness of being bulky, slow to reload, a slow movement speed, and a good amount of kick. The slow aiming speed can really get you into trouble in close-quarters battle.
The Striker’s primary weakness is also its primary strength – its a well-balanced gun but it is not the “best” at anything.
Overall, shotguns feel pretty weak in Modern Warfare 3, so in order for a shotgun to be remotely useful, it has to get a 1-hit kill regularly (or close to it). The AA-12 definitely kills faster at a very close range, while the Model 1887 has about 6 feet of “1 hit kill range” over the Striker (I have tested this).
In short, the Striker is the more balanced of the AA-12 and the Model 1887. The AA-12 has horrible range but incredible close-range power whereas the Model 1887 is very effective even at range but it reloads after each shot, making a one-hit kill a necessity and 2v1s impossible.
The Striker has none of these disadvantages but is also slightly weaker than both weapon’s at their own strengths.
The Striker is pretty effective at close and moderate ranges – but at that point, would you just choose an SMG instead? It’s a tough decision to make, but most of the time, I would lean towards the SMG (or Machine Pistols with an Assault Rifle) – at least until you unlock the damage proficiency.
ACR - Damage output 45 to x range (Don't remember the distance).
M4 - Damage output 40 to x range (actually quite shorter than the ACR).
Yes the M4's fire-rate is faster, but the kick is most definitely more sporadic, making further shots less accurate, which does not mix well with a shorter range anyway.
I use the Scar. Less damage than ACR, but better range/fire-rate. Also about the same recoil.
Don't look at the in-game stats. ACR is 3-4 kill assualt rifle and kills in one hit at all ranges in HC while the ak47 and cm901 do not. The only advantage the cm and ak get over the acr is around 5ft of longer 3 hit kill range.
M16 certainly does not have better accuracy then the type 95 and only slightly more range. The type 95 also kills in 2 hits at close range, pretty effective against those smg guys.
AA12 gets around 13% higher RoF then the striker, but gets 33% less damage and range along with lower mag cap and worser spread.
Truth is the in-game stats are mostly fake and only are there to make unexperienced CoD players believe the game is balanced. Look at the actual stats and you will see things much differently.
Every good game has balancing and tweeking that goes on, no game is perfect when it first comes out. While yes, I do agree with you that I want guns to feel different and be different, that in no way means I want to nerf things to make them that way. There are lot's of ways to make gun's unique, it's kick/recoil, clip size, fire rate, flinch when hit, range drop off, how much it makes some one flinch when you hit them, power, attachment function, ADS time, reload time, draw time, mobility.... etc.... etc....
The guns in this game don't feel unique not because of things being nerfed, but because this is a f*cking terrible COD that they dev's spent almost no time and effort on with things like that because they had to add in all the gimmicky sh*t.
If we really look at it, this COD has the most added to it out of any of the ones before, and was released in the same amount of time, so it's pretty unrealistic of us to expect things like amazing unique weapons, perfect hit detection, etc.... etc... etc...
There is a way to balance things, while mainting an individuality and uniqueness to each weapon. This game is just failing at having unique weapons in the first place as much as modern warfare 1, 2 and BLOPS did IMO.
If you don't think this game needs balancing than you're not a very good gamer yet. It's essential to the game as much as unique weapons are. Also, players ***** about everything, most people have only played this COD or maybe this one and BLOPS so the majority don't know sh*t from shat. Akimbo scorpions aren't OP, use 'em in good conscience if you want too.
I understand that Akimbo weapons should be able to kill quick, I'm fine with that. My problem lies in the fact they're stupid accurate (you're firing how many RPM and can still fully control TWO guns).
Also they have rediculous range, which goes back to my first point. Guns that fire that many rounds should be able to kill from ranges of 0-10ft max with little effort, instead you have people stretching that to 30-40ft+. I'm sorry but in that situation my Assault rifle should have killed you three times over, not the other way around
I think that the Scorpions did need a nerf, but they nerfed it wrong. The fire rate was fine; it was the zero recoil that was the issue.
The FMG9s, on the other hand, needed a fire rate reduction and an accuracy reduction. The MP9s were kind of okay, and if anything the akimbo G18s needed a buff because they weren't great.
I feel this about a lot of the nerfs.The Type 95 is a nonsensical gun, in my opinion. Its base damage is too high, whereas its damage reduction at range is silly. A 3 round burst weapon, typically, should be a strong medium to long range weapon, capable of a one burst kill. Having a two shot kill at close range was the problem, rather than its accuracy, meaning you don't even have to hit them with the whole burst. I, personally, think the gun would be fine if it had inaccurate hipfire (which post-nerf is still somewhat accurate) and still had a high chance of a one burst kill at long ranges. As it stands, it works as a fairly decent shotgun at the moment and a mediocre assault rifle. What it should be, in my opinion, is a decent assault rifle and mediocre sniper rifle, effectively.
The ACR 6.8 is very good but not overpowered. I believe someone in this thread claimed it had no advantages over the M4A1, due to the M4 sharing a lot of its stats but with a higher fire rate. I would disagree- the ACR's lower fire rate increases its accuracy and makes longshots a lot easier.
I'd prefer it if the worse weapons were buffed than the better weapons nerfed. As it stands, the Type 95 renders the M16 useless, the ACR makes the SCAR-L useless, the MP7 and PP90M1 have rendered the other four SMGs a complete waste of time and the Striker is, for its class, the most OP weapon there is.
That is not to say I think the Striker is over-powered. As a shotgun, it's still putting you at a disadvantage in a lot of situations. It's just that there's not really a reason to use another shotgun over it. It's more powerful than the AA-12 with considerably better range and gives you that life saving follow-up shot opportunity that the KSG, SPAS and Model don't give you. While the pump/lever action guns are more likely to get you a OHK than a Striker, it gives them a high risk make-or-break scenario that completely screws you if you get a hitmarker. Not to mention the difficulty of taking on multiple enemies. Striker isn't over-powered; it's the only shotgun that isn't under-powered.
I agree with crow. Nerfing has killed this game. I can't stand people who whine, because they think they are losing due to their opponents gun being overpowered. The most challenging and enjoyable part of the game is to find ways to counter attack an opponent who may seem to have an advantage. The real issue is that all of those whining people are just to lazy to put any real effort into a winning a match. In their opinion, if it doesn't come easy then its, because the opponent has an advantage or the opponent is cheating. If guns are going to continue to be nerfed then just go ahead and nerf all of the guns and get it out of the way. It seems like its not going to stop until all the guns are useless, so just do a mass nerf of everything. Might as well nerf melee too. Does that sound ridiculous? It's no more ridiculous than nerfing any of the other weapons in the game. I have purchased nearly every title in the Call Of Duty Series, but the nerfing has ruined them for me. Since the madness will likely continue unabated, MW3 was the last game in the series that I will ever purchase. Each time one of the games is released, the first few weeks are enjoyable, and then the nerfing starts. I know the developers are doing what they can to please everyone, but they need to quit listening to the brats out there complaining about overpowered weapons. Instead of nerfing guns, beef up the guns that everyone feels are at a disadvantage. I will never complain about a weapon having to much power, accuracy, etc. However, if I have to empty a clip into an opponent at close range to take them down, then I'm going to have an issue with that weapon.
I'm going put my soapbox away now, at least for the moment anyway.
you obviously are not very good with akimbos. i use them and havent noticed a change at all. i didnt even know there was a nerf. i think they need to work on making the guns more realistic. i dont see how one gun the same caliber as another can be more powerful. the acr should do more damage as it shoots a larger round than most of the others. guns like the g36c have a short barrel which reduces range and velocity considerably. thats the thngs i wondered when i started playing. of course if they did that someone would whine about that too like 90% of the posts on here