what I meant by stats are not fact, is not all stats are based on factual information all the time. Anyone can make up a list of stats and call it fact. Never just assume what someone says is a fact with out first learning how and where they came up with those stats first. Oh and for the record the 95 and mk14 do not always kill in two shots, they only do that at certain ranges, outside of that they take 3 at least someitmes even more depending on where you hit and how bad lag is at that moment. So saying it always kills in two is not completely factual and misleading.
Well obviously! The engagements on MW3 maps will RARELY reach outside of the Type 95's 55 damage range. Its range is 2000, wayyyy higher than any LMG or other AR. That is why you never hear of the 20 damage because you will rarely hit that range.
You will only reach to the Type 95's dropoff damage of 20 on these contacts. There are not many maps that even have sight lines like this.
This guy tested the distance in CoD.
And from the reference site, DenKirson, all of the stickied posts are legitimate and can be tested positive. They are not creating shenanigans. Most of what is not stickied is also true and is proven.
And I will rephrase it for you since it is misleading from the way you are putting it:
The Type 95 is a 2HK guaranteed until you hit a target from outside the 2000 range or around 47m. That is when it becomes a 5HK.
NOW you should understand this.
The problem is that you keep saying that there are NO bad guns, when clearly not all weapons are equal. Sorry to use an exaggerated example but if a weapon took 10 hits to kill and was bolt action, it would be a bad gun.
The AK isn't a bad weapon, but it is simply outclassed by the ACR. sure if a good player was using the AK against a bad player with an ACR the AK would win. However if, say a team of 4 using ACR's was put against a team of 4 using the AK,with similar skill levels, the team with the ACR's would dominate because it is simply better.
It's not like I just picked up the AK once, did bad and said it was garbage, it's my 7th? most used weapon. When I use it I know I'm at a disadvantage to the ACR users. I like to use weapons that are more difficult to use, but the problem with the AK is that it isn't just difficult to use, it's worse. so players that like to use the more challenging weapons are not rewarded.
For instance, the MK14 is more difficult to use than the ACR, however, it is a 2 hit kill so there is a point in using it.
Ahh, you finally understand do you. :-P Your argument this time was even better than any of your recent ones. And you made solid points with proof this time. Your getting better at this ya know. There are a few maps with the long enough sight lines to allow it to drop down but not many spots on each map this I will admit is true. But that does not guarantee a two hit kill then each and every time. Just a greater portion of the time.
Now you get the idea, it is not just the weapon and stats that make the difference but the abilities of the players using them. Your key word in your example was "of similar skill". And that is my main point, not everyone that uses each weapon is of similar skill, so the weapon and it's stats themself are not the deciding factor if the weapon is good or not. It is merely an indication of how well it could perform in the hands of a person with enough ability to use it correctly. Not that it will peform that well in everyone's hands all the time. So even the best weapon in the game can become garbage if the player can not handle it properly. And the worst weapon can outclass any other if the person has the ability to use it to its fullest potential and those they were going against could not use their weapon equally well.
Which is why I still say there is no bad weapons, just players who lack the proper ability to use them to the full potential of the weapon and get frustrated and call it a bad weapon.
Oh, I agree with that that. I do understand but since there is so many people of various abilities that play the game it is hard to decide where to place the balance at. Make them easier for players with less ability, or more challenging for those with greater ability. That is why it is very hard to ever get a game truly balanced when it comes to how each weapon can be used. Cater too much to one side and the learning curve is too high and players will not enjoy the game enough and give it bad reviews. Cater to the other side and the game is too easy and becomes just as bad to those that wanted a harder game to play and thus they give bad reviews about the game.
which is why I have always said there is no game that is even close or ever will be close to being perfectly balanced in gun play. For it never can be for there will always be one side of the equation that is not balanced.
Too hard for noobs= fun for tryhards= not fun for noobs= less noobs wanting to play.
Too easy for noobs= not fun for tryhards= fun for noobs= less tryhards wanting to play.
The problem comes in finding the middle ground, one that is ever changing and shifting as the tides of the seas do with each new generation of players coming online in to the genre of fps games.
I'm not talking about how hard the game is, I'm talking about weapon balance. skill is just a factor in who wins a specific gun fight, it should not be brought into weapon balancing. Perfect weapon balance is impossible to achieve but even I could do a better job than MW3 in some aspects. Deciding how easy the weapons are going to be to use overall is different matter to weapon balancing.
Not really they are one in the same, if the weapons were so called balanced against each other as much as some players think they should be there would be little to no reason to use them. Even worse then it is in most fps games to begin with. The only reason there is any vareity is because the fact that some weapons can do better then other weapons. but if each was closely balanced against each other it would actually dumb the game down even further and would not appeal for many players. If the only differnce in how a gun worked was jsut within 5 feet of range in shooting the guns would be copy paste.
possible player ability at useing the gun and doing well has always been part of the gun balance. Not just the stats of the weapon alone. And you must remember this is a company who wants to sell as many games and make as much money from those sales first. Not a company that is trying to make the most ability requires shooter out there. for that would not generate the number of sales it does now by being more about fun and less about ability.
Fun sales games faster then high learning curves.
It's not always about the sales trial star. It's about the longevity of a series. Continue to sell out your games, and like that dirty hooker down the street, people will stop coming by. Your original fanbase will disappear, the people who supported you from the get go and a casual audience's allegiences can change mighty quickly. Creating a game to last and that is really fun and great will make sure that when you gain fans, you don't lose any either. Each year, COD loses many fans, but gains many too. There can only be so many "new" fans before the well is tapped fully.
Ahh but is all about the sales to them. For they are banking on the fact that even as some players leave others will come in. Not everyone goes to or listens to what other players say about about how well a game or franchise is before buying.
The well can be never tapped fully since there is so many new players coming online each year/month and day and playing more games. This is not the same time period were only a limited number of players could play the games anymore. It is not the same as when the original fanbase first started with the game. And this is why sales is all imporant, next to fun, for fun generates sales more then skill does to the average or casual gamer.
Not everyone that comes online and plays games wants to have to worry about getting good to do well or to have fun. Some just want the fun with out all the time investing that the original fans had to do to get good.
The entire orignal fanbase could leave and it would not kill the game off ever. Beacuse there is always somoene new just around the corner that will see the game in a store and buy it because on how fun it looks on the box with out asking anyone else if it is fun or not.
In this so called age of elightened consumers many are still pretty dim to tell the truth and still buy by personal choice and not because of what some site or magazine says about a game.