hang on a sec, you claim it isn't a cqc weapon yet in your first post you you give descriptions on it's use for only cqc situations, clearing rooms & fighting in the biolab.... and I'm the one that should to feel embarssed. riiiiight
Wow, this guy really doesn't have a clue of the difference between a close combat weapon and a short effective range. You must be one of those RPG gamers who understands nothing about shooters, so perhaps I'll explain it in terms a WoW kiddy can understand. The MCG is for AOE damage. Don't use it for 1v1. Same with Lasher with its bullet bombs, same with Jackhammer with its inferior shotty damage. They're for mass-clearing rooms of enemies, not for dueling. Oh, and that "traditional HA gun" from PS1 was also the only HA gun. We have LMGs now, use them. This isn't PS1 where everyone rolled around in Rexos with Jackhammers, MCGs, and Lashers. The iconic weapons are now support weapons with unique roles, LMGs are our bread and butter.
words cannot express my shock at your lack of cognitive reasoning, I think I'm done discussing it with you as you have not yet made an argument as to why we should keep a spin up on a weapon that is design for "close range fighting" You enjoy your bread and butter, I want roast pheasant.
You have been waiting for someone to STATE THE OBVIOUS this whole time??? This is not PS1. TTK is significantly lower. MCGs with spinups were the core weapon of PS1, here LMGs are the core weapon. Having a MCG that had no spinup time AND the fastest rate of fire AND the lowest recoil of any heavy weapon would flat out make the weapon overpowered. Both the Lasher and the Jackhammer have been toned down as well to now be support weapons, not the core of any army. People have cried endless tears about the CARV, you think it would be any different if suddenly the MCG surpassed every LMG in the game in CQC? Please tell me you're not that ignorant. I need my hope in humanity. You've failed to even point out what's wrong with the MCG. The spinup time is a handicap for its obvious superiority over similar weapons. The reason it has a spinup at all is because once you start firing, you're not supposed to stop. It's effective at wiping out packs of enemies, but little else. As I already stated in a previous post, the obvious advantages of the MCG become more obvious when you have a squad of them. Willful disbelief doesn't alter their effectiveness at their prescribed role. Honestly, the only possible reason you can still be arguing against this is that you are so bad at the rest of the LMGs in CQC that you insist on having a God Cannon that ranks as the undisputed master of shredding people at close range. If you're that desperate, switch to NC and buy two Hacksaws.
Spun or unspun the gun is just bad. It should be "belt fed" and you should be able to fire your whole 300 clip without reloading and a slightly smaller COF. THEN it would be a situational suppressive weapon and the spin up would make sense.
How is the MCG an AOE weapon? It doesn't shoot exploding HE rounds. If a weapon has only a short effective range, how is it not a close quarters weapon? The only WoW kiddie here is you.
Again with people wanting the obvious stated... The MCG has a spinup time. Spinup weapons are area suppression weapons in every game, as well as war itself. Once you start firing, it's not efficient to stop firing. Starting and stopping spinup weapons repeatedly is a very bad thing, and usually a rookie mistake. Some games have the spinup able to be done independently of the actual firing, this one doesn't. The entire point of the MCG is to go into a room with the the trigger down and not stop firing until every ******* in the room is dead. It's extremely good at this job, area sweeping.
Oh that's just brilliant that is, so should I just ask all the nice NC & VS boys N gals to huddle together so I can mow them down I'm sure they'll oblige me with a smile and a cheeky tip of the hat... One of us definitely doesn't understand the design concept behind the close range MCG and it ain't me. I'd have no problems with it having a minor nerf to bring it in line with it's compatriots if it meant loosing that stupid spin up. You also make my point for me, TTK is fast in Planetside 2, the spin up on the MCG ruins it for that reason.
I can't think of any weapon I'd fear less on a TRA HA than a MCG. I think the repeater would worry me more.
They do it without asking all the time. It's called base assaults. Which is typical of a solitary soldier. In a 1v1 battle, no one should ever fear the MCG. Get a squad of them and you see they actually aren't as bad as you think they are, your perceptions are simply misguided by your misuse of it. Pit a squad of 12 guys with CARVs vs a squad of 12 guys with MCGs and tell them to kill each other. Quit your imbecilic forum warrior macho display and actually TEST it for yourself. We have organized TR outfits doing this crap on a daily basis, when the MCGs come out, base defenses die. Again, the problem is not with MCGs, the problem is that too few people have them and even fewer people work together to support them. Get into a good outfit, not whatever ragtag band of minions you're rolling around with.
Looks like common sense isn't really common. You still haven't explained how the MCG is an AOE weapon. How is it an AOE weapon? A grenade is an AOE weapon, a tank cannon is an AOE weapon, a Zepher is an AOE weapon. I don't see how a MCG is "obviously" an AOE weapon. You don't know your terminology, yet you are trying to sound like a smart ***.
AOE = Area of Effect, not Explosion, designates abilities in RPGs designed to attack CROWDS The MCG = weapon designed to attack CROWDS This topic = full of posters using it for dueling and wondering why it sucks at it
Are you kidding me now? The MCG should not be effective unless I have my entire squad using the MCG? People should spend 1000 certs or 700 SC on a weapon that could not be used by itself? Lol, folks, lets just have 12 of everything now or it couldn't possibly be effective.
Reading comprehension failure. I stated this already several times in this topic... the obvious advantages of the MCG become more obvious when there are many of them. That does NOT mean the MCG is useless without lots of MCGs, it means that the ignorant masses are more CAPABLE of seeing the effect the MCG can have when there are several of them in one spot. A single MCG working side by side with one or even multiple LMGs is not going to display some earth-shattering world-changing effect on the battle, as it is still only one weapon. However, having a squad of MCGs will show a MARKED improvement in area suppression over having a squad of LMGs. Again, this pertains to *PERCEPTION*. Your perceptions aren't fine enough to be able to pick up the effect of a single MCG on a longstanding battle. Have a squad of CARVS vs a squad of MCGs and you will SEE the effect MCGs have more clearly. The effect is still there when there's only one MCG, it simply becomes more visible to you when its concentrated.
Which is more effective, a squad of MCG's or a squad of post nerf carvs? I'm going with the carvs. The only reason the max chaingun is semi-effective is that its a max, and maxes are harder to kill quickly. Its also somewhat underpowered. The problem isn't what you think its role is, the problem is that its really not very good at its role.
Funny how you use an incorrect RPG definition in a FPS shooter. "AOE = Area of Effect, not Explosion, designates abilities in RPGs designed to attack CROWDS" Here is your previous quote on RPG gamers. "You must be one of those RPG gamers who understands nothing about shooters, so perhaps I'll explain it in terms a WoW kiddy can understand." MCG is not an AOE weapon under any definition, state, or form. There is no splash damage from the MCG. The bullets must impact the target to cause damage. The only one who understands nothing about shooters here is you.
Again with the reading comprehension failures. You have got to start paying attention to arguments rather than vehemently adhering to your own interpretations. This is a shooter, target acquisition is rapid, there is no turn-based cooldown system involved. I explained MCGs in terms of RPGs for players who fancy that genre, and in the RPG world that's what it's purpose reflects. It is not intended for single target combat, it's intended for multi-man combat. In fact, turn-based games like Fallout had machine guns actually spray over an area of effect. They weren't grenades, they weren't rocket launchers, they were miniguns yet would hit multiple targets because it was an RPG. The only way you can argue against this is by claiming that the MCG is *not* intended for multi-man combat and that it *is* for 1v1 combat. THAT would be an absurd claim I'd love to read, as it would confirm what I already think about you. Keep digging your own grave, I'll keep pointing out where you went wrong or failed to read an important point. Test runs between the three major TR outfits on Waterson proved the MCG won all practice squad skirmishes. We were just as skeptical as you guys, the difference is we don't take forum banter as fact, we test things out ourselves. The low recoil and higher firing rate resulted in casualties in fewer rounds than the CARV. You can run your fingers like a fool or go test it yourself.
Lol, you just proved my point. The MCG is a worthless weapon by itself. Any infantry weapon that could not stand by itself is not worth the certs, SC, and time to use. The CARV is accurate, has a 100 round magazine, has a faster TTK beyond 10 meters, no spin up time, and doesn't cost a dime. What made you think I couldn't clear a room with the CARV, or the MSW-R? Am I supposed to buy the MCG now and pray that I have 5 other guys distracting the enemy for me while I mow them all down? Your little RPG explanation of "AOE" is as irrelevant as your argument is vapid. Your petulant, arrogant attitude is amusing though.
This guy is right, the MCG does NOT lose a lot of effectiveness when facing multiple enemies while being inferior to average weapons in 1v1 combat. This makes it an AoE CC weapon. I really don't see how anyone could debate this logic.
