I'd like to again point out that recoil is what matters; deal with recoil and you deal with accuracy. The number of spins in the barrel also matters, but recoil is the biggest. That's what a bipod mount is for...recoil and stability. That's why when they made the M21 sniper rifle, it was an M14 with a prime stock on it - every 1,000 M14s was worthy of being an M21 or something. You also have other ways to dampen recoil. Case in point: Carlos Hathcock - the legendary sniper from Vietnam who had 93 confirmed (and unknown number of "unconfirmed") kills to his name; the sniper who shot an enemy sniper through his scope and killed the enemy sniper. Well, Hathcock had two guns he used a lot: his issued Winchester .30 06 rifle...and a .50 BMG rifle. But you see, the M82 didn't exist in his time. So what .50 BMG rifle did he have? The M2 Browning machine gun. He made a special mounting system for it of his own design and attached a scope and fired it in single fire mode. And how accurate? Well...accurate to 2500 yards. Hathcock held the distance record for a confirmed kill until 2002 when a Canadian broke it (and largely because the rifles have matured since the 1960s.) My point is simply: just because it's an MG doesn't mean you should turn the accuracy down; you should turn the recoil UP and from that you will kill accuracy. Unless they bipod or tripod mount the gun. I've fired guns (range doesn't effect the recoi...) and I know how it differs. I also know that you're not supposed to hold down the trigger. Ever. You fire in bursts. Most guns if you hold the trigger down will overheat the barrel within 200 rounds. You do that, you warp the barrel, you ruin the rifling and you risk cooking a round off in the chamber. If I fire the MG in SINGLE FIRE the first round SHOULD BE on target. If I fire in bursts, the gun short rise. I can counteract that rise and hold it down as best as I can and accuracy will still suffer, but that's why you fire in a second or two burst, stop, require your target, fire, stop - etc. Not what I said. A barrel too short allows the bullet to leave the barrel with too low of a velocity. That means the range is low; a barrel too long and friction will slow the bullet down. A barrel of the right length, which depends on the size of the round AND the pressure of the rounds you're firing, will allow the bullet to leave with the peak amount of velocity.
I think we should take a lesson from Project Reality. They tried to simulate the way that SAWs actually work, but instead of using it for suppression and automatic fire, everyone just uses one or two round bursts for deadly, accurate sniping. If what you're referring to is the Abakan, then you're completely wrong. The AEK's are all assault rifles, too.
how about we remove the crosshair for HMG.. then make it death lazer?? i say this is a fair trade off. basically, the HMGer would have to fire a tracer or reference round to see where the bullet lands.. then adjust his or her aim to kill enemy troops. at the same time, the first couple of missed rounds would give enemy troops time to take cover and such. it would still be deadly at short range and it would be ownage at far range once the user figures out where to aim. OR.. increase the rate of fire by A LOT.. to upset the inaccuracy and less than desireable damage. increase rate of fire and give rifleman more ammo to hold, but keep everything else the same.
And you know what? That works for me. It's realistic. Because see...we don't have one hit kills in EMP, right? We're not going with the ""one bullet to the chest kills" thing. So fine, people use it in short bursts and get kills. What's so bad with this?
The problem's not that it's instakill, because all weapons are pretty much instakill atm. The problem is that if you give it sniperlike accuracy, people will use it as a sniper. The way I see it is every weapon has a designated niche and they should be balanced to make them fun and useful for their niche, not go by realism. If we've decided that the HMG's role is a cumbersome but fast firing weapon with a lot of ammo for suppression, then that is what we want, not another AR or sniper.
didnt some dood in vietnam sniped a vietcong from 2 miles away with a 50 cal machine gun? lol and some canadian dood who sniped some terrorist dood with a 50 cal sniper rifle from over 2 miles away?
Hathcock, and it was ~1 mile. He held the record for 30 years. The canadian was a .50, then someone else did it again at longer range with an explosive round, through a wall. Range of an HMG > all but a sniper. Sniper is longer. Recoil of an HMG is greater than the other automatics. Damage of the HMG is more than the smaller ARs and SMGs. Less than that of the sniper. Sniper = scoped, HMG does not. No offense meant, but it sounds like you're just trying to make excuses. Seems really simple to me balance wise to make there be a place for the HMG.
Obviously the recoil should be greater than other automatics, but why does it have to have longer range and higher damage? Being the "heavy machine gun", naturally it should shoot fast, have a large ammo capacity, and have heavy recoil. That means the only things left to tweak are the range (which is really just the falloff), the damage, and the accuracy. I don't think it is good gameplay to have people lone-wolfing it around a classic map with the HMG and acc upgrade, proning and sniping people one shot at a time at long distances.
since HMG uses larger rounds, increase damage. in close range, HMG is deadly anyways and the increase damage wont matter.. BUT, with increase damage, long range is still crappy. you can do 500 damage, but it wont matter if you cant hit. Although, it does help if you do hit them at far range. at any rate... theres more damn scouts than HMGers in a game.. dont you see a problem with that? lol
the hmg is practically useless now. good job. nobody is scared of it when i tried to used it as a cover fire weapon. there is no incentive to use it at all. all this mumbo jumbo talk doesn't help at all.
Just want to point out that 93 wasn't considered anything that special in the Vietnam war. Many snipers had much more. He's just famous for that one long range kill. On top of that, many of the snipers as far back as the Korean war did the M2 trick, he didn't invent it. It's far less impressive than Simo Häyhä who got over 500 in less than 100 days, using ironsights only. And that's not including more than 200 smg kills he got. Also, what Varbles said. And considering you don't play anymore, your opinion is void. Realistic =/= fun. Super accurate MG would play out terribly ingame, and has no place in Empires. It won't happen.
can we have the HMG do as much damage as the NFHR? but leave everything else the same. at close range, the increase damage doesnt matter since its a can of whoop ass.. but at far range it still doesnt really matter.. BUT if it does hit at far range, it does matter. so thats why i asked before... is empires suppose to be realistic or unicorn, batshit crazy. the thing is trickster, the current HMG.. is not fun except on certain maps or very special situations.
Because the HMG doing 40 damage is a genius idea. Why not just give every player !slay @aim if they go prone?
Reduce the speed at which someone changes into the proning (don't read porning here) position and in turn decrease recoil or increase accuracy/something. I remember Battlefield 2... those were horrible days. "IMAINSTANTLYGOPRONEANDDEATHLAZOREVERYTHING"
@ Trickster: the scope mount was of Hathcock's design. Moreover, 93 puts Hathcock at #4. And that's counting "confirmed" kills, as I noted before. Meaning...it's a bullshit number. Yes, he had AT LEAST 93. Likely more than double that though. No one can say who really was in the top numbers. And why he's known? The long range kill, the kill through the sniper scope, he's known for the white feather, how many other GIs wore a white feather to throw off the would be snipers who wanted to take out Hathcock because he had a $30,000 bounty on his head... Why would it be more recoil than a AR? Many MGs use the same rounds found in ARs. You fire FASTER so it's harder to counteract recoil, but recoil shouldn't be more because it's an MG. Moreover, they have an MG, therefore you totally nerf their movement. Is it REALLY that hard to actually come up with ways to limit this? And again I point to making the range less than a sniper rifle. Unless you nerf the sniper rifle, THEY'LL WANT TO GO SCOUT. Christ almighty. And Trickster, I don't play because of these stupid balance issues among other reasons. I've PLAYED and I know what I want and what I think would work. Moreover, everyone is saying the MG is shit. How about this: you try upping the accuracy and putting other limits on the class instead of making assumptions and statements for which you have no backing data on?
If you want to make the mg nerfed, you might as well remove it. It serves no purpose. Tried to use it for cover fire, nobody is scared of it when it's a peashooter and so inaccurate.
actually what just came to my mind IF we want to use it for suppressing fire it would need a high RoF, minimal damage, high spray AND...stamina damage that way those guys under fire cant just run out of the suppressed position but again that would require teamplay and that isnt given in the most shooters but the rts part of empires would require it and besides i still like my bipod idea
The bipod idea is old in the forums and thus not yours. MG could instead of damaging stamina decrease maximum speed of enemies hit and close to the hit location by some (5?) percent for a few (2?) seconds. Hitting again would refresh the lasting time of the first hit and additionally reduce the maximum speed by the same percentage, so you would pin the enemy down after some (20?) shots.
