XOOM

LMG Solution Planned

347 posts in this topic

34 minutes ago, xanthus said:

Do you have any video to back up that claim?

In the 10+ years since the first forum posts debating this issue, the only relevant video I've ever seen posted was an American infantryman walking forward (with some difficulty) while firing a BAR. I've never seen that with an MG-34.

 

 

 

BTW:
It's worth noting how far away from this game's playerbase is from the kind of realism advertised for WWIIOL. The devs try to fix Rambo LMGs, relegating the weapon more towards the support role it actually had.......and many veteran players on one side completely freak out  over the ability to run around while hip-firing a freaking MG-34.....(which makes it clear how the weapon is actually mostly used in our game).

This is not a problem in ARMA 3 or Post Scriptum or Squad (where you could never run around while firing such a weapon to begin with). Just shows how much some current players actually care about the "realism" and "mil sim" aspects this game claims to have.

It is the selective fixing of one aspect that essentially only really impacts one side.

At no stage have I ever said the rambo lmg is a good thing, the need to be stationary is a good fix, but there should be a fix for all weapons - walk and fire but not run. (Feel free to look back at my previous posts Xanthus). Anyone who thinks you can realistically  run and fire has never had to use that type of weapon for real. ALL RAMBOs need to be fixed, not just the lmgs.

This will be perceived by one side as a victory (and it wont stop them losing towns) and the other side as a nerf. Perception isnt reality, but I have no doubt there will be unsubs because of this - will there be new subs to make up the shortfall, we shall have to wait and see.

CRS needs to announce the other fixes that will soften the blow to axis sooner rather than later, a tease is just not going to help, if anything a teaser just makes things worse because the tease means "we know we are screwing you on this, but to make things right...."

 

S! ian

Edited by ian77
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

I'll leave you with a subtle hint that I will expand on "soon." I know the Axis have taken this a little bit harder (the old thread and subsequent threads about the MG34 make that clear), but I do have something in store coming that they've been waiting for to help with this disappointment that some may be experiencing. A cryptic ending, no less.

42 reasons to get excited. *nosetouch*

Or are Ju saying there is 88 reasons to get excited? *drool*

Edited by forrest
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, forrest said:

42 reasons to get excited. *nosetouch*

Or are Ju saying there is 88 reasons to get excited? *drool*

I was thinking stg44 reasons. We already know about the ju88.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, dre21 said:

The only thing I would have left in the game would have been the T walking feature and firing , slow enough and it will ensure that if one has to move around on its on axis you won't get the head shake cause the game considers it as you moving to fast in the normal setting.

The T walking feature allows all sides to be Mobil but slow enough to be able to control such weapon . There would be no run and gun with the T feature  , but the Avatar wouldn't be a standing still target either , maybe something to consider.

 

Just for the record, I don't disagree with this at all.

My original proposed solution was to have it so that you would fire and walk (currently the T key), just like you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a former in real life mg34 user, I will simply say; That was a good fix. Salute.

As for the unrealistic reload speed and the bipod extension issue I can wait.  :)

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Well, it's a welcome change for sure, so don't get me wrong. And my comments are not targeting one specific weapon, but the whole class of weapons (auto's). Just my two cents, I think the game still has too much of an auto weapon flavor, as opposed to a more realistic battle fought mostly with rifles. Any change that brings the rifles back to prominence (not talking about spawn lists) is welcome. 

You tend to get a lot more rifle-to-rifle engagements in the open field and at FB's really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ah64e said:

sounds very stupid, bottom line up front an attacking soldier places maximum firepower towards its objective, you already crippled the LMGs by making them pause 2 secs to go prone to set up the bipod.   This is what you get with non-military personnel making war game decisions.  Why lose more gamers?  all the constraints and restraints have a huge effect on participation, why do you think you have suck a large number of free to play gamers?  

  I love realism.  You sound like you're giving 1930's weapons 21st century capabilities.  Sure, you can fire any of these weapons from the hip, on the move, but all you'd be doing is wasting rounds.  what these weapons had over the WW1 versions was speed of deployment and barrel change; seconds versus minutes.  These weapons placed maximum firepower towards the objective as you state.  They had to do it from a stationary position to be effective though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thomboi said:

  I love realism.  You sound like you're giving 1930's weapons 21st century capabilities.  Sure, you can fire any of these weapons from the hip, on the move, but all you'd be doing is wasting rounds.  what these weapons had over the WW1 versions was speed of deployment and barrel change; seconds versus minutes.  These weapons placed maximum firepower towards the objective as you state.  They had to do it from a stationary position to be effective though. 

There is almost no difference from these LMGs to their modern counterparts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep the thread on track this topic is about LMG's Not SMG's. You can make a new thread for that if you would like.

Edited by Psych0
2 people like this

Share this post


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

I'll leave you with a subtle hint that I will expand on "soon." I know the Axis have taken this a little bit harder (the old thread and subsequent threads about the MG34 make that clear), but I do have something in store coming that they've been waiting for to help with this disappointment that some may be experiencing. A cryptic ending, no less.

You may need to expedite "soon" at the rate the way this thread seem to be headed........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HALLELUJAH!!  Glory be, what a great change! This has been my top complaint for years.

Next on the list for the LMG audit should be the recoil issue.  The BREN was actually designed to be mobile (but forget that point for now), and was known and proven as the most accurate LMG in WWII by far. In suppression situations soldiers considered it TOO accurate - many accounts.  The axis LMG34 was NOT nearly as accurate in real life.   

In the demo video, you can see the LMG34 is far more accurate than the Bren and French LMG, and has little to no recoil.  I would recommend accuracy (cone of fire adjustments) and recoil adjustments to all three making the LMG34 less accurate and the Bren more accurate.

S!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, I just want to share my feelings and experience with this current LMG change. Firstly I will say I have not played WW2 Online in a long time (just very brief stints to see what has changed) and I have not bias one side or the other. I have played many WW2 first person games including Call of Duty (the original) all the way to Post Scriptum. Here is my take on this since I have enjoyed playing LMG's previously and most recently I stopped playing Post Scriptum for its own issues with making compromise to the LMG gameplay which when you advertise it as a realistic shooter then this is not the best way imo. Onto  the latest announcement from WW2 Online about LMG's. I very much disagree about this direction the game is taking and I will explain why. While I understand the reasons for making this choice to make the LMG a more supporting role as it should be,  the big problem I have is when you remove something entirely to support a game mode. Firstly reloading while moving I totally agree with making that not possible. You have to be stationary to do this. This very much makes sense.  The trouble I have is not being able to fire from the hip. This has always been an issue every since the early WW2 games and continues to be a very hard point to overcome. While I understand that no one wants "run and gun" game play with LMG's (myself included). The problem I have is deliberately causing a certain play from being possible. What you may ask in the solution ?  I still think when you walk (and even sprint) you can fire an LMG from the hip however they would have noticeable penalties associated with that (e.g. walking and firing causing the shots to be widely inaccurate and if you are sprinting it will be even worse). In addition when moving it could cause a might higher stamina loss (from the extra effort in trying to control the gun while firing) so it would have some noticeable penalties to moving and firing (again worse when sprinting). This would have a much better feeling than simply stopping anyone playing LMG's from moving and firing completely. I really do understand the need to make LMG's more of a support role however there are better ways to handle this than simply blocking any shooting unless you are stationary or deployed. This is my opinion. I hope you can reconsider this move as I do feel it will hurt the LMG gameplay. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jwilly said:

Of course the FG42 was not intended as a squad LMG "because of its weight". It was intended as a squad LMG because that was the goal of the development program at the Luftwaffe weapons center...to provide the Fallshirmjaegers with a full-auto-capable, rifle-caliber weapon, light enough to be jumped with using a larger chute, to fill the squad LMG role in infantry doctrine i.e. fire support. The impetus for the development program was to avoid further fiascoes like Crete, where the MG34s and Kar98s were all in weapons canisters, most of which fell in open fields covered by British MMG and rifle fire, and the troopers were armed only with pistols and a few SMGs to shoot back.

FG42 and BAR should not be considered LMGs for this purpose.  Having said that, neither was known to be very accurate and both had high recoil.  The in-game modeling of FG42 needs an audit on cone of fire, recoil and flash. It is far too accurate - especially from a running/moving perspective.  It should be only as accurate as the BAR at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting discussion but one that is filled with mis-information and unrelated clutter.


Here is the overriding reason for the changes to the capabilities of all the weapons in the LMG class in WWII Online. It is simple and should be easily understood:

Quote

ALL weapons in the WWII Online classification of LMG (specifically the British BREN, the French FM24/29 and the German MG34) are over performing when compared to their historical real life counterparts.

This is not a new issue but an issue and appears it was part of the original implementations for these weapons.

Why is this relevant? WWII Online has at its cornerstone “a military grade combined arms combat simulation” it would be remiss not to address the original error. If you have been keeping up on the various forum postings there are a lot of “corrections” being worked on. The “Rambo LMG” being one of many. As one poster indicated the “109 flop” was also one of the “corrections”. Could this correction be seen as a “nerf”? The generally accepted definition of a “nerf” is:

Quote

to deliberately reduce the capabilities of a weapon to be below the capabilities exhibited by that weapon in real life.

I would say as the original and for the moment, current implementation effecting ALL of the weapons contained within the LMG classification were “Buffed” (the opposite to nerf) in the first place, so the proposed “correction” is consistent with the WWII Online’s cornerstone.

Just because it has been incorrect for a long time does not make it any less incorrect. What kind of Game is it you wish to play?

 

On the BAR and the FG42 discussion. There is a lot being made over the weight disparities between the two weapons but both being classified as an Automatic Rifle. Yes there are significant differences in weight. M1918A2 = 8.8kg (19lb). FG42 Ausf G = 4.95kg (10.9lb), however both easily qualify as Automatic Rifles. One poster mentioned Battle Rifle, which both would qualify for as well.

The reason for their weight difference is also simple. The original M1918 (prototype) had its design work commencing in approximately 1917. It would be designed and constructed using the then current best practice for weapons. Weight was NOT a design consideration for the BAR. Design work for the FG42 on the other hand was initiated following the Crete assault. The battle for Crete commenced on 20 May 1940. Weight considerations WERE a significant part of the design specifications for the FG42. This is the reason for the weight disparity.

The difference in weight has little bearing on the type of weapon. Neither weapon would have been a good LMG. Fortunately for the US the M1 Garand was in general issue as America entered the war in Europe. The M1 Garand was semi-automatic and largely offset the very underperforming M1981A2 that was forced into the LMG role.

Battle Rifles is a post war term but is no longer used. Both the BAR and the FG42 would easily fall into this classification. Examples of Battle Rifles are the US M14, British L1A1 SLR and the German G3. These weapons are still in use but have largely been replaced by the 5.56/5.54mm firing Assault rifles.

Cheers
James10

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

I would like to put in my 2 cents. For those of you who know me, I play both sides, and lean towards the underpop side. I have been on the receiving end and handling the MG34.  

As for the receiving end, Rarely do I see anyone actually clearing a whole depot by themselves with Rambo style tactics. It does happen, but not to the extent everyone claims. I would say 90% of the time that I encounter an MG34, the person is either set up in a window, on the ground cutting a direction, or deployed downstairs or upstairs in a cp defending. A year ago, before the infantry lag fixes were implemented, and people killed you before they rendered, this was a common argument, but not as much now. 

On the handling end, I have Rambo styled cps, and I suck at it. The typical result was me trading with someone. That isn't to say I haven't been successful on occasion, just that unless you use the weapon on a daily basis, you're not going to be very effective at using it Rambo style. 

 

With all of that said, the people I see complaining the most about the changes, are the ones that are using the weapon on a daily basis, and are exceptional at Rambo style tactics. 

 

I do have a few suggestions though. I am not entirely on board with you not being able to move and shoot. I agree with the shooting triggers you to go into walk mode, and accuracy is decreased by 50% vs being prone or deployed on the bipod. The other suggestion I would make would be the ability to fire while walking backwards. 

 

(off-topic) Since someone brought up planes, I agree the Axis need a plane that can actually catch the havoc and DB-7 in tier 0 and tier 1. Nothing more annoying than not being able to catch up to RDP raids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aismov said:

My response will be in 2-parts, one as a dedicated Axis player, and two, as a supporter of WWIIOL and the game we are trying to have here. For starters, I personally support this change. I would personally like to have firing enabled while walking, but its really not a big deal for me either way. I use the LMG pretty much exclusively with the bipod deployed.

Now, I think there is no denying that players primarily on the Allied side have been pushing for this adjustment and at the same time have the most to gain for it as well. But at the same time, I don't think this is the disaster some are making it out to be as most CPs are capped by rifles and SMGs, and not by LMGs. I can understand that a few players really enjoy using the LMGs in this way and have gotten very proficient at them. But lets me honest here... the way that they were used was flat out gamey and immersion breaking. I honestly think it will do zero to affect the flow of battles, so just as Axis players are overdramatisizing the loss of this, the Allies similarly have made a mountain out a molehill regarding the effectiveness of the LMG turning it into the bogey man that caps all CPs and clears out bunkers stacked with 10+ defenders in one spray. Both are false.

Now to give a further couple coins of opinion. In a general gameplay sense I think the most important is for both sides to just fess up to their feelings and move forward. Just like it is disingenuous for Axis players to threaten subs over an adjustment to one weapon, it is similarly disingenuous and smacks of condescension if Allied players now all of a sudden rush to the "its historical" argument and deny they have gotten the adjustment they have been asking for purely for gameplay reasons. The opposite side will see right through it and it will breed simply another cycle of recrimination (as can be seen in this post and other posts with Axis players now looking at Top Bomber stats, Top Fighter stats, and insert-your-weapon-du-jour to complain about here unit as well).

We should all work to try to be more level headed with everything. Try not to see things with side-blinders on, and when something happens to benefit your side, just man up and admit it that you wanted a fix and it will benefit your side. Honesty may not heal all wounds, but it will at least make a more constructive atmosphere that a lot of the BS and faux ex post facto explanations we see on these forums.

S!

Best thread response yet! +1 S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a dedicated allied player here. I would support leaving the ability to fire while walking (slowly) with a dispersion increase.

That said, I would also support reducing the amount of LMGs in supply significantly.

One of the problems with the game having such volatile population levels is that when pop is low, the LMGs (and SMGs, for that matter) are very much over represented on the ground. At high pop times when a given AO / DO has a lot of players spawning, those units are exhausted at a reasonably speed; at low pop, a whole attack can run with 90% of players using an automatic weapon of some flavour.

I would love to see the spawn pool size scale with the population of a given side, so that a similar balance of spawn mixture is maintained in all TZs.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcafeed said:

HALLELUJAH!!  Glory be, what a great change! This has been my top complaint for years.

Next on the list for the LMG audit should be the recoil issue.  The BREN was actually designed to be mobile (but forget that point for now), and was known and proven as the most accurate LMG in WWII by far. In suppression situations soldiers considered it TOO accurate - many accounts.  The axis LMG34 was NOT nearly as accurate in real life.   

In the demo video, you can see the LMG34 is far more accurate than the Bren and French LMG, and has little to no recoil.  I would recommend accuracy (cone of fire adjustments) and recoil adjustments to all three making the LMG34 less accurate and the Bren more accurate.

S!

OMG already the new fix request for the axis LMG!

 

Edited by ian77
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mcafeed said:

  The in-game modeling of FG42 needs an audit on cone of fire, recoil and flash. It is far too accurate - especially from a running/moving perspective. 

And the next one! Surely to God you can enjoy your victory first before demanding more fixes??

Edited by ian77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so ian, anything that moves the bar closer to realistic performance is a nerf even if the current performance is too good?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, madrebel said:

so ian, anything that moves the bar closer to realistic performance is a nerf even if the current performance is too good?

Look at the vid I linked, in game performance match vid no?

Notice the lack of barrel climb, due to the barrel being in line with the stock, not above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, madrebel said:

so ian, anything that moves the bar closer to realistic performance is a nerf even if the current performance is too good?

No.

That post has now been edited, "nerf" was clearly the wrong word, thanks for pointing this out. S!

I have previously said it will be perceived as a nerf by many of those playing Axis. I think All Rambo nonsense needs to be addressed. (Apparently mentioning another weapon will get post deleted.)

XOOM hints at other fixes to sweeten the axis pain..... All the fixes should be implemented, and I would suggest doing them at the same time, or at least announcing them together, to help avoid the gloating of one side and the chagrin of the other.

All my posts have agreed the LMG rambo role was BS and had to be fixed. The firing from hip stationary is fine by me. BUT the LMG rambo isnt the only BS we have.

 

S! ian 

Edited by ian77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ian77 said:

The firing from hip stationary is fine by me. BUT the LMG rambo isnt the only BS we have.

 

S! ian 

I will be interesting to see if anything takes LMG's place  as a rambo substitute. 

Edited by Psych0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psych0 said:

I will be interesting to see if anything takes LMG's place  as a rambo substitute. 

Fwiw, I almost never hip fire with SMGs. 

 

Aim Down Sight FTW.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.