35 Replies Latest reply: Sep 6, 2012 4:49 PM by erikpemberton RSS

Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

This is the first time I have ever felt the need to blog about issues with a game that is suppose to be one of the best FPS shooters to date.  Everything discussed here is regarding multiplayer grievances that should be taken care of before the game was released and made record sales across the world.  I know the developers really don't give a **** about the players and only care about if they bought a copy of the damn game.  Also I understand that some of the listed complaints will be based on realism issues and that this game is suppose to be more arcade like in play style, but there are some issues that are so obvious that computer programmers seem to be oblivious to "the real world" and never really take into account the "real world" weapon or physics.  All I ask for is that the game does have balance for all players and realistic weapon characteristics aside from the severe lag issues and players being able to cheat by "walking under the map."

 

I have a solid 8 years in the United States Army as an elite 82nd Airborne Paratrooper who has handled nearly every single weapon in the game, so apart from my American biases towards US/NATO made military weapons (which are the best and that's a fact the rest of the world will just have to deal with.) I have a lot of hands on experience with most of these weapon systems.  Since I can't be an elite soldier for my entire life, it's nice to be able to pretend I'm a soldier from the comforts of my Lazy Boy and still feel MW3 has done justice to the great weapon systems in this game.  I get asked a lot from other gamers around college that have never served nor have ever fired a weapon first hand, if the weapon models are accurate to "real life?"  I astoundingly answer to them, whom themselves are programmers and think that they can replicate the real world in the digital world, that the Call of Duty franchise gets the weapons wrong every single time.

 

Again I want to say that I understand they are attempting to balance the game to make it more user friendly to a wide audience, but with that said how blindly are these game developers to THE REAL THING?  Do they not gather a large source of military subject matter experts, gather real world weapon performance data (because its all over the web), and finally design the game weapon around this collection of data?  So to start off my list of suggestions to GREATLY improve the game, I would also state that the player model given is equal to a real world tier 3 operative no matter the side whom would normally be able to operate all weapon systems with a high level of proficiency.  Without further a due, lets start listing because you know how programmers are oblivious to the real world love their lists.

 

- The biggest issue I have found is that why isn't there an equal number of players that use the Light Machine Guns?  Well lets answer this, because although the assault rifles and submachine guns are deadly in real life, in this game they are over balanced and ridiculously insane in their performances.  Don't get me wrong every weapon in here is designed to take life, but some designs are better than others.  There is a reason why the United States Rangers deploy two M249 SAW's (basically the Mk 46 in game) in every 9-12 man squad and that is because ever since WW1 machine guns have been the deadliest weapon system for the infantry squad with the highest suppressing/killing potential than any other personal weapon outside of indirect or support fire weapons.  Modern LMG's are able to fire at very high rates, hold large magazine capacities, and fire some of the most powerful rounds in MW3.  What I would like to see is, lets use the Mk 46 as an example: The standard nylon woodland green box magazine holds 200 rounds (in game only 100) of 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition (400 rounds in the larger green plastic box magazine) with a cyclic rate of fire (full auto for the programmers) from 750 rpm to 1000rpm and a (point) effective range of up to 800 meters and (area) effective range of 1000 meters.  Although this weapon is Belgian/American in design, this weapon system is the workhorse for the US military.  This LMG, although heavy at around 22lbs loaded, is extremely manageable to fire offhand, kneeling, and it really shines when fired prone or supported using the built in bi-pod.  There have been guys in my platoon that when ordered to engage in CQB when after being fired upon, used the Mk46 to sweep an entire room, killing all hostiles inside before the breach team even entered/cleared.  What I am getting at is that the LMG's can be deadly even in CQB, although not as nimble as say an MP5 shooting a 9mm (handgun round), are even more deadly when the ranges are close or far.  This is where the game designers get it wrong, they believe that a big 45 ACP UMP is more deadly at close range (within 50 meters is CQB or handgun range) which it is and dont get me wrong, but when compared to a high powered rifle round there is no comparison.  This is why more infantry soldiers are issued an M4A1 than a HK MP5 because anything greater than 100 meters and the handgun cartridges fail to still be effective.  Even at close range, LMG's designed for this such as the Mk 46 and the highly re-designed M60E4 are even more deadly than a handgun shooting SMG, simple physics not "game developers' balancing." Of course any belt feed LMG will have a slightly increased reload time, but this is in a sense balancing and high capacity magazines (more than just 100 rounds this is modern warfare right?) make up for this.

 

Please ramp up the deadliness of all the LMG's so they are not the worst guns in the game and at least allow the player whom is willing to give up some mobility for un-rivaled firepower to be somewhat respected in MW3 multiplayer. 

 

This could be done fairly easily by: increasing the normal and extended magazine capacity, increasing the fire rate of Mk 46 because it needs it to be more realistic, Also when firing the Mk46 with iron sights the weapon is nearly impossible to stay on target and this is simply not true to the weapon, the Mk46 can handle the recoil well because it is heavy and has many buffering springs to aid the shooter as well (Watch some freaking youtube videos if you have never fired this weapon).  Also lastly almost all LMG's have a bi-pod as a standard attachment as well as a grip for more effective shooting so maybe implementing the ability to use a multitude of somewhat flat structures as stable firing platforms (this would be the most difficult because no-one besides Battlefield designers thought of players being able to use different areas of the map for support when shooting.)

 

     - Why is the M60E4 which fires a 147gr (bigger and heavier bullet that travels only slightly slower) 7.62x51mm round at 3000 fps (feet per second) with a cyclic rate of 650 rpm only have a close damage of 50 when the cheap Chinese piece of **** Type 95 have a damage of 55 close?  Again this LMG is firing a round that is also fired from the RSASS sniper rifle.  It is obvious that MW3 has a bias for Chinese junk because they probably have a billion of them writing code for the game but realistically when has China ever produced anything of quality since their porcelain of the 14th century or firecrackers that never go off, let alone designing and manufacturing a precision assault rifle?  They put lead in the paint of their children's toys for Christ's sake.  The Type 95 fires a very similar round to the 5.56 NATO round but the Republic of China proclaims their 5.8x42mm round is superior even though they can't afford to use brass for the cartridge and have to use painted iron to house the propellant and hold the projectile.  Any dumb redneck such as myself understands that hard iron slamming into steel isn't exactly good for the firearm shooting that garbage.  So please fix this issue here as well.

 

     -Why does the M60E4 sound like a pop gun when the M60 in Black Ops can be heard from anywhere in the map?  Come on this is what makes an LMG respected is because everyone hits the dirt when these things are fired at them.  Please fix this!

 

Now onto the Assault Rifles, Why does every one use the ACR 6.8?  Because it has zero recoil, damage is off the charts, and it reloads rather fast.  The ACR 6.8 is in real life an awesome weapon and does fire a 6.8 SPC round that is ballistically superior to the Ak-47's 7.62x39mm, the more modern Ak-74's 5.45x39mm round (speaking of modern warfare why is the Ak-47 in the game and not the now Russian issued Ak-74), and the 5.56x45mm NATO round when it comes to knock down power.  The round is rather fat and standard magazine capacity is 28 not 30 and the round was designed to bridge the gap between the 5.56 NATO and the 7.62 NATO.  I love this weapon but realistically it should have more kick than the other assault rifles (aside from the Mk 14 that shoots 7.62 NATO) and should be more deadly than that junk Type 95 no matter how far away the target is.

 

What is up with the CM901 being a terrible assault rifle?  It's exactly the same as the M4A1 which is an AR type platform.  Why does it kick any harder when it fires the same round as the M4A1?  I don't get it, if they wanted a different gun than why don't they use one of the many unique modern assault rifles out there such as the FN F2000 which has a blistering fast firing rate?  I for one would have loved to have used one of them around the battlefield of MW3.  All the spent casings come out in in front of the fore-grip and under the barrel and do not get flung to the right hand side into your buddy's face while shooting.

 

The M16 should have rightly so, slightly better accuracy than the M4 (because of the longer barrel), and slightly more damage because of a little faster muzzle velocity due to the longer barrel.  This was done fairly well in the game already but my point is why is that damn Type 95 more powerful than the M16 and damn close to as powerful as the Mk 14 or M1A1 which also shoots the same round fired from the RSASS sniper rifle and does fire a heavier 168gr boat-tail hollow-point Match round at nearly 2600 fps than the M60's linked 147gr FMJ boat-tail BALL ammo?

 

Submachine guns in this game are ridiculous at close quarters and rightly should be because of their fast handling, fast aiming, and fast reloading.  With that said why is better for me to grab a P90 add extended mags and rapid fire to use like a LMG than an actual freaking LMG?  Also hey game designers what the F$$k were you thinking because a P90 cannot have an extended magazine without having to completely redesign the whole damn firearm.  Haven't you even looked at your own designed "reloading animation" for the P90?  The magazine fits upside-down inside the steel sight receiver and above the barrel/action group.  The casings are ejected directly down towards the ground at the shooters feet.  I have one and they are the **** when it comes to entering and clearing rooms.  The rapid fire rate in the game should be the standard because this gun shoots blazing fast and fires a 5.7x28mm round that can penetrate level 3A body armor (standard military body armor vest minus the ceramic plates) at 200 meters.  Knock down power is always of question but the uniqueness of the bullet which tumbles inside the body gives the round stopping power.  Although a 45 ACP round would be more devastating at close range, the P90 round makes up for this in magazine capacity, the rounds very fast muzzle velocity, and retained energy at extended ranges because of the rounds much higher ballistic coefficiency (BC).  The UMP is a badass submachine gun, if it wasn't the US Navy SEALs and US Special Forces Detachment Delta would not use it in specialized close quarters missions.  My point being there are only specialized times when that type of weapon system is called for, and that is engagements being no farther than largest room of your personal house.  These types of weapons are great at very close quarters but are "not so ideal" when in mixed engagements such as the Afghanistan theatre or several maps of MW3.

 

I understand that this range issue has been scaled down for a more arcade style play, but please give some realistic considerations to actual real life military situations.  All in all the game is great minus; some very serious matchmaking issues on the PS3, huge lag variances that make the game unbearable at times, and glitches (being under the map and able to kill other players running overhead) in the game that allow players to cheat ruining the whole quality of the game for everyone else.  Please come out with a patch that would make it worthwhile to take a LMG as opposed to an Assault rifle or SMG.  This works in Black Ops, why can't it work in MW3 and be even better?  The weapon balancing is as simple as LMG's unyielding firepower-limited mobility, Assualt Rifles moderate to high firepower-moderate to high mobility, SMG's limited firepower-best in game mobility.

 

Other issues to fix, why does a knife thrown from one end of the map to another and hits your player on the foot yield an instant kill whereas the big and badass Barrett 50cal that has killed men in "real life" over 2 miles away only yield a slightly damaged enemy when you shoot the guy in the pelvic region?  Please fix this bullshit!  I'm sorry but throwing knives are not a staple of the US military weaponry, but a 50 BMG round is!  Please make the high caliber sniper rifles absolutely deadly such as the 50 cals, the M118 which shoots a 338 Lapua round and can kill at over 1500 meters, the MSR, and even the inaccurate Russian junk Dragunov SVD which needs only to be able to hit a 4 inch square 50% of the time at 100 meters to pass the field testing.  Yes I am US weapons biased but I atleast can appreciate all weaponary no matter how much the junk factor is (Ahhh yeah the Type 95), there is a reason why more people are killed by an Ak-47 than M16's.  Even though the junk hand me down Ak's are spray and prayed by little 6 year old Tutsis of Rwanda killing a few million of their own people, but Ak's kill because they were of a good design and they almost always go bang.

 

I love the perks idea and killstreaks, I love the split-screen online play for those of us that have friends in real life and not just digital ones, and I love adding attachments with weapon proficiencies, but damn does MW3 suck in comparison to Battlefield 3 when it comes to realism, environments, vehicles, ballistics, destructible everything, weapon models, and finally SOUNDS!!

 

To rehash LMG's are the deadliest weapons utilized by a 9 to 12 man infantry squad and since MW3 only supports up to 18 players at a time therefore each battle is between two squads.  LMG's should be much more deadly in game than they actually are, especially the Mk 46!  Some weapon designs are better than others to which some weapons in the game should just be not as good as the rest name the Type 95 again.  The age old Ak-47 should not be in this game and instead should be the Ak-74 but it can give players the balancing dilemma as the M16 vs the Ak-47.  The M16 excelled in accuracy and longer range stopping power while the Ak-47 was better as an up close, spray and pray, rust bucket that would go boom even if burried in the mud for years.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read all this junk but anyone that has a say in making the gamers happy please make it a bit more realistic when it comes to the weapons because every gamer can appreciate all the weapon systems used in this game.  Thats why we play FPS in the first place right?

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    MW3 doesn't even remotely try to realistically depict real life war and it's equipment usage, and I find it a bit puzzling why you'd think that.

     

    You know why an AR is more effective than an LMG? Because an M4 is WAY cooler than an MK46 - that's the reason right there.

     

    I agree with you on thing, though, I'd LOVE to see the F2000 in this game.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    Don't care about realism, but as of now, the M16 is obsolete and the whole AR category needs a little bit more variety in characteristics.

    • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
      RAMBONER

      @Bravo good information man.  Thats definately a ton of info.  I was so pissed when I finally opened my m60 and it is complete junk.  I had a bb gun when I was 3 that sounded more powerful.  Given the improved sounds of all the AR's on this game I couldnt wait to hear the m60.....  I used the m60 in black ops and rarely anything else because it sounded so beastly and with hardened on it I literally could clear a room from outside with it.  Now the sites are terrible and it sounds pathetic and the recoil (which is probably more realistic now) makes its user at a huge disadvantage.  Definately a bummer for me.  At least the AK sounds like a beast this year. ....btw how the F*** do you start a new paragraph on these **** ass new forums.... when I hit return it goes back to the same line.  Plus I had to create a new account to even post and it DP's every post.....

      • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

        Thank you Ramboner for finally having a voice of reason in here with me. Everyone is content with cartoon guns and all I would like to see would be some more beastly LMG's in the damn game because they are in the real world.  The US military doesn't do suppressing fire with akimbo scorpions, NO it uses M249's, M240B's, and M2 50cals.  Also a multitude of other automated firing platforms (Mk 19 Grenade Launcher).  Yeah thats another point why isn't the M240B in this game which should be the replacement for the M60?  I think the game developers got a bit lasy in compiling their weapon systems.  Yeah I would agree with you about shooting the M60 offhand would be rather difficult even for Rambo, but damn is that thing a POS in game when the real world counter-part is anything but!  I'm not sure about the problem with the forums thing but at the begining of the MW3 PS3 posts was an option on the right hand side to start a whole new post.  When replying or adding to this post at the very bottom was a button that says "reply to original post."  Hope that helps.

        • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

          Oh yeah I keep getting "an error occurred when replying to this post" but when I hit refresh page in my browser, my post is there and I only have to do it one time.  If you keep trying to re-post, you end up with multiple same posts.  Keep the comments coming maybe the game designers might take a glance.  But until they do I think I definately switching to Battlefield.  Yeah when an RPG hits the side of the outside wall of the little thatched hut your hiding in, in MW3 you take no damage and get to dance around the game as if nothing happened.  In battlefield 3 the hut blows apart and you die, end of story.  Which scenario is more realistic?  I just expect more from my game developers than most people whom are content with playing children (No Penn State pun intended.) in an adult shooting game.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    esmorgue

    At this point...in all honesty. This game is ranking with Black Ops with me . I love the Modern Warfares. This is everything other than based on mechanics, map development. Graphics CoD4, MW2. SH games had to be given Treyarchs formula by Activision, and dressed that pig up in silk to pass it off as MW.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    I don't see COD/MW as a gun or combat simulator. It's a first person shooter. If the game was made to be strictly realistic it would be boring because everyone would be camping and movement would be limited. In my experience the LMG's in MW2 were crap. They were much better in Black Ops and they seem better in MW3. You just can't play the same style with an LMG that you can with a SMG or an AR. The LMG's are better served in a defensive role and an objective-based game. Yeah, the idea of a cross-the-map throwing knife kill is pretty silly but in 120 games so far I think I've been killed by a throwing knife maybe 2 or 3 times. My problems with the game center almost entirely around lag/connection issues. That's been an issue with all the COD games I have played for the last 4-5 years. I would LOVE to be able to consistently shoot what I see and see what I shoot. What is new to MW3 is the intermittent -in-game freezing. I don't know what causes that but it's pretty annoying.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    I don't see COD/MW as a gun or combat simulator. It's a first person shooter. If the game was made to be strictly realistic it would be boring because everyone would be camping and movement would be limited. In my experience the LMG's in MW2 were crap. They were much better in Black Ops and they seem better in MW3. You just can't play the same style with an LMG that you can with a SMG or an AR. The LMG's are better served in a defensive role and an objective-based game. Yeah, the idea of a cross-the-map throwing knife kill is pretty silly but in 120 games so far I think I've been killed by a throwing knife maybe 2 or 3 times. My problems with the game center almost entirely around lag/connection issues. That's been an issue with all the COD games I have played for the last 4-5 years. I would LOVE to be able to consistently shoot what I see and see what I shoot. What is new to MW3 is the intermittent -in-game freezing. I don't know what causes that but it's pretty annoying.

    • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

      @popeye337 Yeah I get your point about COD being not a simulator and I understand that but wouldn't in the spirit of balancing the game by making the LMG's a force to be "reckonned" with make the whole game better?  I would like a "blend" of realistic weapons, ballistics, sounds, attachments, and physics with the arcade nature of the perks, killstreaks, and proficencies.  That's all I'm saying, yes if MW3 were simulating real warfare the game would be a camp fest because no one respawns in the real world.  Sometimes you guys are missing the point I'm trying to make is that I want the LMG's to be beastly because they are in real life, and no I don't want them to be made the "best guns" in the game because I don't want everyone just running around with them either.  If they were beefed up a bit then you might actually see guys taking them whom don't mind giving up some speed/mobility for unrivalled firepower.  What I do mind is that no one takes the LMG's because the game developers seem to be more SMG fans that make dudes running around with akimbo scorpions more deadly than a d@mn Mk 46 gunner.  All I want and it would be easy to do in a patch is that the Mk 46 to be much more badass than it is.  The thing should shoot 1000rpm, hold a standard of 200 rounds (400 rounds extended magazine), and be able to fire the thing full-auto somewhat more controllably in the game (maybe incorporate a bi-pod for stability near somewhat flat sturctures like BF3 does) all because the real world Mk 46 is beastly like that.  To balance the gun with the others, keep the reload times the same at a long 6-8 seconds and the mobility of the player character being slightly impaired as already in-game.  Just as easy as tweeking the numbers.  Patch please?

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    i agree with the OP the balance is terrible

    dispite the rediculous over-emphasis on CQB the humble shotgun is pathetic, it saddens me that the undesputed king of close combat weapons is so badly neglected in all COD games.

     

    September 27th 1918, Sargent Fred Lloyd single handedly took a german occupied french town using just a shotgun! The shotgun was so effective that the Germans called for shotguns to be outlawed as a weapon of war. yet in all COD games you have to shove the barrel up your opponents nose to have any chance of killing them. 

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    Long post, sorry if I skipped a lot but what I read made sense, I got excited in cod4 because it was getting close at that time to a realistic combat shooter, that went with the release of MW2 and MW3, they sacrificed realism for arcade, I'm not complaining either as I enjoy the fast paced fun of multiplayer, just was a little disapointed when they took a different route !

     

    As for my in game grievances they have to be slow animations for changing weapons against the speed of being killed, I'm using my secondary far more these days as they are effective on cqb, slow animation and unrealistic for throwing frags, semtex or any device, you're dead before you can throw something and flashbangs and concussion rarely work or you're dead before they take effect.

     

    The maps are too flat, why can't I jump on a crate or objects that wouldn't be hard in real life and getting snagged when trying to take cover.

     

    Also some of the game mechanics are way off, someone could be behind cover with a little head popping out and you can't hit them even with the reticle or sights dead on, they can however drop you.

     

    Terrible spawns ( good for me ) both B flags in dom on Fallen and Hardhat have spawns in front of your eyes, not good for those poor enemies but I'll take advantage, sorry but everyone else would do the same !

     

    This all destroys the realistic feel even more for me, I like a good fight but people take advantage of bad game mechanics, even myself so Devs spend a little more time getting it right and not just rushing these games out, ty..............

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    I agree 100% with OP.

     

    I think after World at War the game has been geared more toward ADHD suffering 12 year olds.....which is funny as the game has an 18 rating.

     

    It seemed more realistic back then

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    maccabi

    one of the few times i have typed tl;dr and actualy meant it.

     

    the "realism" word in the title was enough for me to make an educated assumption and reply with its a video game nothing more not a realistic military shooter you wasnt that go play americas army or arma

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    sennalike

    Most people say they don't expect CoD to be realistic, but I bet when something "unrealistic" kills them they are shouting "WTF, yeah right!" (or worse) at the tv.

     

    As for gun balancing, the closer they make these guns to the real thing then you would see more and more people just using the same weapons all the time.  I think the developers idea of balance is to have everything start off the same and then make minor tweaks.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    From my experiences with FPS games i honestly have to say realistic military shooters make boring games. Id say BF3 strikes a pretty good balance but anything past that just becomes dull. Most gamers dont care if a game is realistic or not they just want something fun that plays well and looks pretty

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    AdmSolo

    Silly and stupid I know, but for an acutal comment to the original post, get rid of the death money being blown out from the body when someone dies.  It is stupid and annoying all at the same time.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    Well said, Bravo20. Your spiel about the LMGs is definitely something I have had in my mind for a long time. I had a few different approaches to it and perhaps you can extrapolate with it further. Shouldn't the LMGs have an inherent "Impact" proficiency? Those are large bullets and should they not be able to penetrate through a wide variety of materials such as wooden buildings and perhaps cars? I've seen some LMGs in action and some can rip right through solid concrete yet with MW3, I can never seem to kill someone behind a few wooden crates.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    Bravo,

    I completely agree with you and appreciate your (and your fellow soldiers) commitment and participation in our armed services. I agree that this game is not realistic. What you need to realize is; it is not meant to be. It is supposed to be enjoyable to all walks of life. The customization of your characted is an expression of each person's own individuality. If someone wants to rock a P90 on a huge map and rush, they can. If you want to snipe on a tiny map, you can. It is a game. Just as a human being cannot launch himself 30 feet forward doing a spinning back kick like Johnny Cage in Mortal Kombat. A real soldier cannot slow the detonation of a claymore by having a "perk" in the real world. As much as I feel for you Bro, I am really sick of people complaining about this game. I don't think people are posting somewhere about how Monopoly money doesn't feel like the real thing, or how no one could possibly live in those tiny motels. I'm pretty sure you don't "respawn" after being killed in real life either. Just enjoy the game and find what works/is fun for you and quit sweating the details.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    Truthfully I am with you I would like to see more realism with "extras" to balance it out. get rid of the heart beat sensor and ****. make my sniper rifle actually kill someone when I use the barret and hit them in the chest! hell and the thing is come one people your ******** about how bravo20 is dumb bout wanting this but your ******* retarded for not thinking hmmm do it for ******* hardcore so you still have your norm with arcade feel and bravo20 has his realism with hardcore and I can jump between both. I mean look at all the games coming from GT2 what did that ******* have? an arcade and simulator disk for people of both worlds and they have done that for many games.

    for you people who say realism doesn't work look at Americas army 3 how many people play that on the PC every single day? hell just add another game mode and bam it's fixed hell most of it would probably be taken care of with scripts and an update.

    and nameing guns by the right name is always a plus.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    fisheadz

    yeah i like this. the different gun classes should imo have less overlap in abilitys, ie smgs rule cq, ar mid to long ect ect makes more emphesis on picking the right tool for the job

    snipers should be jus that, it is jus wrong that a 50cal barret ect can be used as an assault weapon. lmgs are rubbish, lsw takes same rounds as an ar to kill but the recoil accuracy of it makes it useless in comparison, to make up for lack of mobility you should be rewarded with firepower which you are not

     

    if there was not supposed to be some degree of realism why do they use actual weapons an make them look like them, why use actual equiptment uniforms ect. it is called 'modern warfare' imo it feels though its been made by kids for kids, should be called made up warfare.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    robbierocket

    Well, I thought that was a good effort of a post. You're no literacy editor which is why you repeated yourself and jumbled the points but I'm sure most people understood your points.

     

    As for the criticism by others, there's no point worrying - with a text that big, anyone could criticise due to the sheer amount of words. But your point - if taken simply - is fine. Why not balance the guns properly, even if we just take the gun classes for example.

     

    Realism can be disputed all day long, no-one except people like yourself and others in the combat zone or harm's way can begin to explain how things are and I'm sure training, mentality and a host of other factors count more than gun size. That doesn't mean the game can't be as it is but with the characteristics of the individual guns still represented - in the MW3 FPS perspective.

     

    So yes: Make the M60E as beast of noise, make all the LMG's more worthy (vs a group or vs solo when user is stationary), make the SMG's drop off in usefulness outdoors and (you didn't mention this) make shotguns one-hit-kills at ranges 2-5 metres.

     

    I don't really agree with your comments about the Chinese although you did openly admit that you are a redneck as well as your US/NATO biased admission. Humility is admirable in these forums and pride is not a virtue. Although firing guns online is hardly a noble effort it may be worth mentioning that your claim that an renowned ancient culture (and country with 1.3 billion people) has offered nothing since porcelian makes you - from a country that wasn't recognised 250 years ago and has since assumed many elements of all the other cultures of the world - lose some of the weight to your "realism" post here.

     

    As I said, though, the information and effort you put in is appreciated.

     

    Physics is the stuff!

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!

    IRL several of the weapons shown in game have armour piercing rounds, that is to say that the standard munitions are armour piercing. ie. M82A3, capable of penetrating half inch steel plate at over 800m and the p90 is capable of penetrating lvl3 body armour at 300m. the MP7 is so good at penetrating body armour that HK claim there are not currently any vests capable of stopping it.

    anyone else notice that the handgun stats are compleatly wrong... according to IW .357 is more powerful than .44 and .50AE.

    and the 5.7mm has the same damage and stopping power as 9mm.

    ????

     

    although i agree that if the weapons were realistic then only a few of them would be used but surely IW cant claim that MW3 is anything close to a realistic shooter.

     

    the LMG catagory is as unrealistic as possible, 1st. L86 LSW, uses standard mags, due to the magwell design drum mags designed for M4 type weapons do not fit!! the mag capacity is 31 rounds and the ROF is 700rpm, it is a very accurate weapon and is used as a DMR since the introduction of the L114

    2. MG36. is not a true machine gun, its a standard G36 with a drum mag and as such would suffer conciderable wear from extended fireing, the weapon is 80% polymer and the barrel is not designed for use as an LMG, when training in germany i had the privalige of fireing a G36 with CBeta mag and the front handguard gets more than a bit toasty when you put a full drum through it in one go. that having been said as far as i know it is in use with both the german and spannish armies.

    3. MK46. has a much larger mag capacity and is alot more accurate than potrayed in game, I have experience using th L114 (british varient) and know that it is possible to hit targets as 800m with a high degree of accuracy (why do you think we use a 4x scope on ours) the weapons weight adds a lot of stability. and despite the para stock not having a buffer system like to us SAW stock the recoil is light, afterall its a 5.56mm LMG with four times the weight of an M4.

    4. M60E4 is an incradable weapon, its powerful, accurate and very f********* loud!! having been in close proximity to a marine firing the MK43 (same weapon different name) when that baby lets rip you know about it and so does the other guy!! the recoil is managable and the E4 is the lightest M60 varient to date.  The only thing i personaly dont like about all M60 varients is the iron sights.

  • Re: Game Balancing and realism issues!!!  Please add comments to let the game developers know what they got way wrong!
    erikpemberton

    Good lord, that's a block of text!

     

    I do fine with MG36 or MK46 in multiplayer. If you adapt your play style, you can really tear a team up with those. Unfortunately, most people who complain about LMG usage in MW3 are trying to play it like it's an SMG or Shotgun class, and (rightly so) get their asses handed to them.

     

    While realism and fine details can really add another dimension to games, nothing is going to help MW3 players overcome real-world problems like getting Cheeto dust in their analog joysticks. It's a game, it's meant to be fun, and the developers should be able to take some liberty with the mechanics to make it more palatable for everyone. If you're spending your time thinking about how the gun sounds, you're doing it wrong.

     

    What's next, demanding the adult industry include more sweat, wheezing and farting in their porn in order to make them more realistic? Sometimes the experience trumps the minutiae.