• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
XOOM

Proposed LMG Fix

370 posts in this topic

Most comments in here are downright SCARY, esp from the kapital letterz and other "experts" w regards to the current in-game implementation of the MG34 LMG in particular.

The dispersion has already been "fixed" to the point where a good 1/3rd of the rounds fired from the hip are bound, aiming straight ahead mind you, to clip your toenails or hit the moon or the building left/right of you even if off-screen at some point...thats with the barrel being held steady at some fixed point AHEAD of you - a 90deg deviation from where the barrel is pointing at.

Going by comments here from the aforementioned crowd it seems they have used an MG34, in-game, about as many times as i have used a DB7 Starship - but thats not getting fixed, or the Thompson Rail Guns, the Grease Gun off to Tier 2/3, the ballistics coefficient of the k98 sS round, the wildly inaccurate MP40 after the last "fix" in 2007 which, coincidentially started out the same "MP40 too accurate wawawah"....etcetc

 

While i appreciate the effort in general - im NOT in favor of another overhasty snotbubble-fix

 

Re. "Semantics" - the MG34 was an LMG, specifically designed as SUCH - it could be used in the MMG "role" by mounting it on a heavy TRIPOD with optics and all - that still doesnt make it an MMG in the first place, it was and is an LMG!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

(...) except if the dispersion parameter can be changed while moving. In this case dispersion could just be drastically increased.

As Merlin noted above, in close quarters spin-and-blast use, circular dispersion doesn't make any lethality difference because the range is so short...therefore dispersion is not a good substitute for physics limitations on such easily-spin-the-gun-around use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, xcas said:

Really? WHEN was the last time a allied piece of equipment been NERFED?         answer me that       

This is not specific to either side. It affects both sides LMGs. Not really a nerf. It's like reducing visibility for aircraft or the HE audit i suppose. Both sides feel it the same. Albeit your LMG is a better gun so Axis will feel it more i suppose.

But to answer your question ... by your standards, now the sherman has more HE, less HEAT rounds. Happened a couple months ago. Brit Grenadier if you wanna go back further ...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

59 minutes ago, gsc said:

 

Re. "Semantics" - the MG34 was an LMG, specifically designed as SUCH - it could be used in the MMG "role" by mounting it on a heavy TRIPOD with optics and all - that still doesnt make it an MMG in the first place, it was and is an LMG!

 

Re semantics:

The MG34 was designed to be usable in the "role" of a LMG when used with its integral bipod. When it was placed onto its tripod, Lafette 34 (bipod still attached) it could be used in the "role" of MMG. The MG34 was not designed to be a LMG or MMG but to be capable of being used in both of those roles. The BREN and the FM24/29 were designed to be a LMG from the outset and were also destined to be used in the role of LMG. At the time the MG34 was introduced it was a New class of weapon. This new class would eventually become known as a GPMG. This designation however is a post war designation so would be in appropriate to apply it during the WWII time period.

 

Within WWII Online the following weapons fall within the usage "role" of LMG. US M1918A2 BAR, FR FM24/29, UK BREN and the DE MG34.

ONLY the BREN and the FM24/29 are actually designed to be "true" LMG's.

The M1918A2 BAR was pressed into service in the "role" of LMG for the US forces. A role at which it preformed poorly. Fortunately the US forces were also equipped with Semi-auto M1 Garands which made up for their under preforming LMG. The M1918A2 BAR is classified as an Automatic Rifle, very similar to the DE FG42 in many aspects.

The German MG34 is a new class of weapon and did significantly influence the post war period with its ability to be used in the "role" of LMG firing from its bipod and MMG firing from its tripod. Same weapon, different mounts, different "roles"

So from a Symantec point of view the MG34 was not designed to be a LMG. It was designed to fulfill the "role" of LMG within the German forces. It was also designed to fulfill the "role" of MMG as well.

 

Cheers

James10

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

The ability to reload some of the LMGs while standing is maybe unrealistic for some of the weapons but I am not an expert 

For all of the currently modeled magazine-fed guns, the field supply of magazines was very limited because of greater demand than supply. So, if you were a machine gunner and you had three magazines or canisters, you were not going to toss an empty on the ground while changing, because it might dent or be stepped on...and then you'd have only two magazines or canisters in the next firefight. Instead your loader would take the empty magazine from you and put it into a magazine vest pocket or belt pouch, or an empty canister into the canister bag.

If you were operating without a loader, you probably needed to kneel or be prone anyway, or set the gun on an elevated surface if standing, so as to have enough available hands for the task without simultaneously having to properly support the gun itself. For the MG34 in particular, modern loading videos clearly show the need for two hands for the belt-start-and-cover-latch task, which leaves no hands for the gun. If you have the gunstrap fitted at the right length so that the gun hangs where you can work securely on it with the canister side away from you, maybe you can handle that...but where does the full canister come from, and where does the empty one go?

Pretty much the same for the Bren and FM24/29, though they're a little easier because the magazines fit into ammo vest pockets or belt pouches.

If the M1919A6 is modeled with the pinned belt box, it definitely shouldn't be reloadable by one man while standing.

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iv posted stuff by this guy before he gets all his info from books "which i believe over internet facts" but heres a bunch of good info on MG's just because we are on that subject.

Its good info you might learn somthing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of us are getting entirely off track with the labels I'm trying to use to differentiate between the weapon classes in code and game. For instance, "automatic rifle", "light machine gun", medium machine gun", etc. The fact of the matter is that they can and have shared a myriad of definitions based on such things as the nationality creating the label, weight, ammo load, rate of fire, operating crew, etc. Other guns like the MG34/MG42 that can and have served in both light and medium "roles", with the passage of time are now classified as a General Purpose Machine Guns or GMPG's. So yes, in the context of this thread, semantics. We are not here to waste time arguing such. Sorry for the confusion.

The point of the matter and why we are having this discussion, is that we need to break the automatic weapons from one class into two. From here on out, we will be using the class labels "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" and "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" because those are the classes already available in the code that we will be using to differentiate them based on certain operational capabilities between them.

All of the rifle caliber "machine guns" currently available for infantry use in the game except for the MG34 will be in the "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" class. The MG34 will be in the "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" class.

I hope this clarifies things for everyone to the point we can keep the focus on the proposed in-game functionality of the weapons in question rather than the labels loosely used previously in the discussion. That's the last I'll be saying on the "label" or "class" bit, so lets talk functionality!

Carry on!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an FYI, You do not have to actually open the receiver cover on the MG34 to load it, less so than the M60 even.
And you try to save those leaders, just like you try not to throw your magazines away.

 

Not that semantics matter a whole lot, but the MG34 and MG42 are Universal-Maschinengewehr
One gun to fit all machinegun roles, depending on how deployed.
Put it on a tripod and it fills the MMG/HMG role, put it on a bipod and it fills the LMG role, put it on an AA stand and affix the large spiderweb sight and now it is light AA, put it in a coaxial mount and drop the firing rate and now it is a tank MG etc.

Edited by Merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

increasing the dispersion will only make the "grenade like shotgun" clearing more effective cause there's more screenspace the guy can kill in. with the average 100ms lag it's enough to clear a CP while running/jogging

there were (and still are) instructions to fire while moving at a walking speed, how about removing the running/jogging only and keep the walking fire, so the lag isn't so much of a factor.

 

 

i'd rather you guys focus efforts to add the ADS fire to the allied LMG's instead of nerfing... add to the game instead of nerfing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the guy behind Ike, looking up at where the bullet stream is going. Penny for his thoughts.

And Churchill's barrel discipline must have been a joy to the likely-senior-sergeant whose knee the barrel is pointed at.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, major0noob said:

there were (and still are) instructions to fire while moving at a walking speed, how about removing the running/jogging only and keep the walking fire, so the lag isn't so much of a factor.

The unrealism isn't firing from the hip, whether stationary or walking...it's rapidly spinning while firing.

Since the game AFAIK has no mechanics for rotational momentum, instead the peak rotational rate (i.e. degrees of rotation per second) should be made proportional to the weight and length of the loaded weapon.

So, 9mm SMGs will be optimum for spin-fire. A water cooled MMG if somehow man-carried would be highly unsuitable. Other weapons would be in-between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the deployed LMG's also still shoot with their chest's exposed making them huge targets

why not put effort into adjusting that instead? it's side-partisan and reduces the overall usefulness of the class across the game

Edited by major0noob
a letter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HATCH said:


All the rifle caliber "machine guns" in the game currently available for infantry use except for the MG34 will be in the "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" class. The MG34 will be in the "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" class.

I hope this clarifies things for everyone to the point we can keep the focus on the proposed in-game functionality of the weapons in question rather than the labels loosely used previously in the discussion. That's the last I'll be saying on the "label" or "class" bit, so lets talk functionality!

Carry on!

"So this isn't a fix for all sides LMGs - it is just going to nerf the axis MG34" Is how many will choose to read this......

Xooms initial post and suggestions are probably about right, the rambo use of LMGs is pretty much nonsense, but it is how many players use them and it is a very side specific complaint/fix. Comments such as the HATCH quote just add to the "CRS hitting axis with nerf stick again" conspiracy theorists. I would suggest it is 15 years too late to make such a fundamental change to just one small sub group of infantry weapons - too many players are now too deep set in the way that they play. No firing while moving is sensible, but will only really impact the side that uses their lmg in this role (axis), many preferring it to the perceived inadequate smgs.

The changes can only be implemented imho when a full update for infantry play comes in. If we want LMGs to be used in historical roles, we need to be able to see ei at 400m over the sights (all nations) to be able to shoot at them in a heavy weapons support role. Using a rifle at range has a better larger image than the LMGs .

If these proposed (and needed) LMG fixes are implemented it will be seen by about half the playerbase as CRS nerfing Axis, and yet more subscribers will be lost. We wouldn't put in more clouds, or stop flying in the rain, (all of which are far more realistic) because the fly boys would loose about 50% of their game time and would understandably quit. LMG play in this game is clearly not historically accurate, but for now, that horse has long since bolted and the fix will only harm the overall game even more.

 

S! Ian

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meanwhile, adding shoulder fire to allied LMG's and fixing the deployed LMG's "sitting at attention" get nowhere...

you guys like nerfs too much, call it a fix if you want. it's removing usefulness from units, while forcing them into a bugged state.

 

the reason we don't use deployed MG's soo much is cause the guy's head is 3 feet above the barrel asking to get shot. but lets nerf instead of improve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there a a couple films on youtube where you can see guys testing a mg34/mg42 hip firing.

its not accurate but it still can use.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bebop57 said:

Keep nerfing our equipment and all that will be left is xoom and merry allied clan.

On 41 sorties this campaign, 37 were with the Germany LMG, and You have a K/D of 4.54. That's impressive. 

How many of these kills have you made while running ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bebop57 said:

1 or 2, usually in prone or at a window. Dont know any of this bursting into a room bull[censored]

Well you are a good example of how LMG should be used, so I don't understand why you don't support the change. 

Have you suggestions for counterparts if LMGs are no longer being able to shoot while running?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Xoom’s proposal.  I think rotation while firing should be severely limited to a 20-30 degree arc, simulating swinging the gun without moving your feet.  Rotation could even disabled while firing if that is easier to implement. 

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bebop57 said:

Yes, unsub

this is what nerfs do... there's a long history of it in every online game

 

CQB gameplay is a problem that needs to solved but nerfing is is a awful answer

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, XOOM said:

Hey all,

Tonight I dove into the code and our data directory, and I'd like to discuss the following as a compromise for the light machine gun class, which covers the: MG34, Bren Gun and the French FM24/29.

Proposed Changes:

  1. Disable firing while moving under ANY conditions
  2. Increase non-aimed (hip fire) dispersion
  3. Increase hip fire muzzle climb
  4. Make reloading a stationary task (only)
  5. Firing LMG will reduce stamina some (does recover)

This would still enable some sort of firing, but you need to either be stationary, or otherwise deployed supporting your Squad.

The BAR and FG42 are considered automatic rifleman which is why they're not included in these changes.

The other option would be completely disabling firing of the LMG's unless you've deployed your bipod. We think the proposed change can help quell this option however.

These really are the options at this stage other than to maintain the status quo, which we do not believe will be ideal.

Okay, discuss, but be productive.

Sound like a reasonable compromise.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely fire an LMG from the hip unless Im moving to a location and I happen to run into or come across an EI in the process so the above proposed changes would be fine with me.  I know others will not as they use it as their main weapon of choice but we could give it a try and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, denisd said:

Want to fix this issue, make the Axis MG shoot off centre when shooting from the hip. 

Players will adjust to the "off center"...........plus you can still run into a depot at run speed and spray and pray. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always said LMGs should not be allowed to fire when running. At most, when walking. Use zooka/shreck model of perfomance (allow them to sprint only with pistol too). And yes, dispersion should be terrible from the hip.

That been said, If I were CRS, I would wait to make these changes happen. This has been wrong for such a long time that wait a bit longer cannot harm. Let's have the full small arms audit ready and the new support weapons prepared to be added and then I'd implement the changes all in one patch. For me, that would have more sense than acting now only in the lmgs (which it will effect more drastically on the axis lmg, because it plays a role than the allied counterparts don't do at all).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.