1 12 13 14 15 16 Previous Next 183 Replies Latest reply: Mar 10, 2012 8:17 PM by marcusbwilliams Go to original post RSS
  • 130. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    creaper21

    juanjux wrote:

     

    So true.People crying about the Type-95 are probably all spray-and-pray SMG users.

    Oh, you mean those guns that actually have recoil? And take more than 2 shots to kill? Yeah, I sometimes use SMGs. Too bad the Type 95 will kill me before faster than my gun even aims down sights.

    I don't even understand why this gun is able to have rapid fire? I thought the whole point of burst weapons was to be good at long range, but be bad at close range?

  • 131. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    mdub

    creaper21 wrote:

     

    juanjux wrote:

     

    So true.People crying about the Type-95 are probably all spray-and-pray SMG users.

    Oh, you mean those guns that actually have recoil? And take more than 2 shots to kill? Yeah, I sometimes use SMGs. Too bad the Type 95 will kill me before faster than my gun even aims down sights.

    I don't even understand why this gun is able to have rapid fire? I thought the whole point of burst weapons was to be good at long range, but be bad at close range?

    Odd. If IW believes QS is okay, why should the type 95 suffer in close quaters either?

  • 132. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    Ok I'm also sick of hearing this point of being "bad at close range but good at long" this doesn't make any sense, in order to be good at long range it would have to have high damage, accuracy, and a decent range this is the type 95, but you can't magically give the bullets more damage after traveling a certain distance that doesn't make sense, what makes it bad at close range, and trust me it isnt that great, is the fact it is a burst weapon and if that first burst is missed at close range then the type 95 will lose every time this is just something you have to sacrifice when you use a burst rifle.  Also you point about aiming down the sights doesn't make any sense the type 95 has the second slowest raise time of all the assault rifles, the mk14 being the slowest, and all the smg's raise faster then the ar's.  So before you post please get your facts right.

  • 133. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    creaper21

    Yet another flaw in their game.

  • 134. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    creaper21

    I think you should read correctly first. What I meant(I thought this was obvious) was that the Type 95 should be more like the burst weapons in previous games. In this game, they make the gun do more damage than SMGs at close range. Why? Do you think that it's needed? I don't.

     

    And the ADS thing... I was exaggerating(a little), but trying to make a point. The Type 95 kills faster than the SMGs at close range. In the situation- Type 95 is aiming at someone with SMG, he looks at him and raises his gun and starts to ADS, but the Type 95 kills him before it even happens.

    ^^It is supposed to be better than other ARs at long range, but not as good at close range. That is how it was in all the previous games and I see no reason why it shouldn't stay that way.

  • 135. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    and again you can't magically make the damage go higher after going a certain distance if it's powerful at long range it will be powerfull at close range that can't be avoided and to balance this they make it a burst weapon.  And this gun is exactly like burst weapons in previous games if you had read my earlier post and watched the video i provided you would have seen that.  In fact the FAMAS and M16 actually did more damage and had a much lower damage drop off.  All AR's do more damage then SMG's at close range that just part of the weapon the balancing comes into play with the rate of fire which is much higher on smg's and mobility.  So once again you can't just have the damage magically change over range.

  • 136. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    creaper21

    They could just lower the maximum damage. Which would fix it. And yes, the damage DOES change over a range. All weapons do.

  • 137. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    The problem with the Type 95 is how good the connection the person has who is holding it.

     

    I see lots of people getting 1-2 bullet kills in this game. More so than any CoDs. The connections are just crap all around.

     

    But the 95 in my hand and a few other of my friends who don't have super T3 connections never use the gun because it's garbage on our connection. It's like 3 burst to the chest and head.

     

    I see people who are no doubt getting host connection getting maybe to hit markers to the air around the character and they go down.

     

    It's like the first host AR ever, usually it's host shotty. That Type 95 is either worthless or overpowered. All depending on the terrible MW3 servers.

  • 138. Re: Type 95 Haters..

    I understand that the damage changes over range but it decreases my point was that if the damage is 55 at medium range then it will be 55 at close range that can't be changed it cant magically change from 45 at close range to 55 at medium that just doesn't make sense and if they lower the maximum damage then it will not even be able to compete with other assault rifles like the FAD and ACR

  • 139. Re: Type 95 Haters..
    creaper21

    holyresistance11 wrote:

     

    I understand that the damage changes over range but it decreases my point was that if the damage is 55 at medium range then it will be 55 at close range that can't be changed it cant magically change from 45 at close range to 55 at medium that just doesn't make sense and if they lower the maximum damage then it will not even be able to compete with other assault rifles like the FAD and ACR

    Yes it would. That's exactly how it was in previous Call of Duty games.

     

    And this isn't the point, but I'm sure they actually could make the gun have reverse damage for short-long range if they really wanted to.

1 12 13 14 15 16 Previous Next