Question: Why is LMG hipfire so inaccurate aka BAD?

like seriously, why?

LMGs are meant to provide sustained fire at longer ranges. They have deeper clips, better ADS, velocity, and damage fall off to make up for crappy hipfire.

The quick reaction time of hipfire also gives the other classes some help getting a heavy damaged before the shield comes up.

it all works out.

thats why.

Netbattler makes a point. The Heavy Assaults are more realistically designed as shock troops, not really machine gunners because the Engineer is much better at it, due to the impenetrable shield, similar damage output. And the quick deploy time makes this class more of an offensive unit as well, the superior multi purpose machine gunner when compared to Heavy Assault with LMG. The primary gun of HA should not be an LMG. The heavy assault is a shock troop, it needs good hipfire.

Well that's a silly explanation. The M249 gun uses the same cartridge as an M16 rifle, has similar rate of fire, but is heavier. Why would this LMG have more recoil than a rifle that is lighter with sustained fire from the hip?

Since we are talking definitions:

Shock trooper roles is to engage the enemy and keep them engaged, preventing them from safely advancing/counterattacking and letting other units move up and do the actual finishing of the enemy. Ideal tools for this: a shield to stay alive and an LMG that can keep bullets flying.

Heavy infantry have almost all their gear in a vehicle, then only bring the gear they need for the fight. This ironically makes them lighter equipped than light infantry who have to carry all their gear constantly and drop what they dont need the moment a fight is started. Heavy infantry is "heavy" because they tend to have more heavy weapons at their disposal in the vehicles to select from, but only carry one of them at a time.

LMG's are hard to hipfire due to the bulk and weight. Once that gun goes off-target it takes a lot more force to get it back on target (but in bursts this is good since it also takes more recoil force to push the gun off-target).

Oh and also, because having no downsides on LMG's (which are acrually SAW's) would be a gameplay problem.

bc... ever tried firing one in real life on hipfire? xD

Because they do LMGs wrong in this game, your mobility would be cut down using such a weapon and granted accuracy wouldn't be so great but your ability to lay down suppression fire would go up. People don't realize with fully auto weapons you don't need to be that accurate when you hose an opponent down.

The only proper way to fire a LMG is braced or mounted while aiming down sights.

Because all of you are thinking of Heavy Assaults in the wrong role. A heavy assault is NOT a shockproof. A heavy assault with a SHOTGUN is a shocktroop. Regular LMG heavy assaults serve a completely different purpose. One revolving more around sapper operations than clearing troop positions. They are a relic of when Planetside was actually a combined arms game, and their purpose then was vehicle hunting, holding positions at medium range, and general acting as the backbone of the three armies. When tanks, MAXs, or aircraft showed up, it was the heavy assault that was called to deal with them.

The reason why the hip-fire is so much noticeable now is purely because the heavy assaults are no long cohesive to the gameplay style of this game. The battles are now all CQC and with the rocket nerfs, heavy's are a joke to tanks and ESFs. In those days, medium to long range automatic guns for Heavy's where useful for holding chokepoints like the rock bridge, or engaging targets in open spaces where they would often operate and this reflects in how their guns operate.

By comparison, LAs could really benefit from LMGs due to their ability to reach good vantage points, but realistically the gun would be too heavy to comfortably fly with, and the heavy ammo would make jetpack maneuvers difficult. Engineers have HMGs, so LMGs really become redundant at the distance they are intended for, Medics are not intended to hold chokepoints, but instead heal infantry and support allied pushes.

The ACTUAL shocktroopers, are supposed to be LAs. but that role has deviated due to the monumental number of buffs to them that have converted them to the HAs original role.

Why does this question exist? Since a sniper rifle is accurate at range, doesn't that mean it should be the same amount of accurate while fired at the hip too? In theory, yes, because bullets don't exit the barrel sideways. But its hard to hold a sniper down low and keep it on target. But its primarily because of game balance that you don't make your slow-firing, high damage, high accuracy weapons perfectly accurate in hipfire. Its the same way with an LMG.

LMG's would realistically have larger (longer) ammunition and only be fired when its deployed on the ground or something similar. LMG's are also crew-operated weapons for the most part, if only because you need to carry extra barrels to swap out when the first one overheats, which is also important for LMG's: easily swappable barrels designed to absorb more heat than regular barrels (usually simply a heavier barrel).
There is one semi-official LMG type that avoids this, the SAW. The SAW uses similar ammunition as the basic infantry weapons, but uses the same detachable and heavier barrels to fire more bullets. Larger magazines are often added but not required, as a larger magazine changes the weapon's firing characteristics over time too much (shooting the first bullet of a full magazine is a lot different than the last bullet). Larger magazines also hinder the role of the SAW: mobile firepower.

PS2 LMG's use the same bullets as their Carbine and AR counterparts (because they deal the same damage) and are fired on the move, so they are all SAW's. Ironically the only weapon that could be classified as the most proper LMG would be the Gauss SAW, which has a big bullet most weapons dont use.

Disagree

The funny thing about planetside is that it's not that realistic. In this game, bullets DO leave the barrel at impossible angles. It's called cone of fire and cone of fire bloom. It's both theoretically possible and realistic that you can have your sights perfectly aligned on your target in this game, and miss more than half your shots if you don't burst.

My biggest gripe right now is that people are trying to bring realism into the discussion now because it's convenient to their narrative of maintaining the status quo. Whenever someone asks for innovation or for the game to match current trends in FPS, realism is downplayed af. "BuT Ps2 IsN'T TrYIng 2 bE ReAlisTiC!1!!1"

Yeah, when I talk about machine gunners, shock troops I am talking about the game. I have the game in mind, not real life.

But ultimately, though it's a very good suggestion that can lead to unique gameplay mechanics, it's a waste of time because the devs here...They think differently. Can't expect anything sophisticated from them.

from a gameplay standpoint i've always seen it as a balance reason.
LMGs are the kings of long range automatic weapons, also sporting the biggest mags.
if they were also good at hipfiring then weapons like SMGs would just seem really overshadowed.
why run anything else when your giant mag LMG is best at long range and can also mow people down with hipfire?


however the new addition of the short barrel is offering some meme potential for several LMGs to be used as hipfire bullethoses.

Realism arguments in video games are almost always made in bad faith.

Most LMGs function well as all-rounders, which is almost always what an HA will find themselves needing. Requesting that LMGs should have a better hipfire sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I always pass over the CQC variants of LMGs and ARs in favor of the longer range alternatives and if someone catches me with a CQC weapon I still have a fair shot at beating them. And if I do lose, I just imagine all the kills they don't get because they need to be ~10 yards away or closer. I'm currently almost done Aurax'ing the Baron and I feel that pain so much right now.

Oh, and you wouldn't be the first to run an HA SMG build if you really want to go for that angle.

Amending my previous statement about shocktroops, they are designed for breaking through enemy lines and then attacking the rear area's and/or the frontline from behind. These units would often be more elite and armed with more powerful weapons.
They would specifically avoid strongpoints of the enemy, focussing on weaker positions to break through, and let heavier infantry deal with the strongpoints.

This means that multiple classes could perform the shocktroop duty, and LMG carrying HA's would be one of them. It adds a solid amount of firepower, which traditionally is used to let others move up. Although the better candidate would the the LA, since the ability to push through and get to the flanks would be ideal. Which leaves the issue of LA's not having the heavy weapons even though they absolutely could...

Battles are not "all CQC", in fact most of the game still revolves around midrange. You fight from cover to cover. When you see a doorway you need to approach enemies will fire at you as you approach. And when you are at the doorway most enemies will have taken cover farther inside rather than in CQC range. Most battles, even inside, are more than CQC. That is why CQC weapons see less use overall than midrange weapons.

Rockets were nerfed, but at no point was there combined arms in PS2, EVER. In fact PS2 has mostly done anti-combined arms.

Actual, real combined arms is about a mutually beneficial relationship where both sides are stronger for specifically using the other side's strengths. In real life the act of using infantry and vehicles simultaneously inside an urban/forested/steep area is mutually beneficial, where vehicles benefit from the protection that infantry offer against ambushes and the infantry benefit from the firepower and small-arms protection the vehicles offer.
In PS2 that HA is better replaced by another vehicle in almost every situation. There is little to no active way for them to work together as there is little reason to. This is especially well visible due to the Harasser, ANT and Sunderer not being used to actively transport infantry in support for vehicles or vice versa. Tanks simply kill on their own accord, infantry have been too weak to properly deal with vehicles even before the nerf. Another clear example is that any base that does not actively segregate infantry and vehicles is dominated by those vehicles.

If people want combined arms in PS2 then we need systems that actively promote it. Each unit needs to have something which another unit can expand upon, making the whole greater than the sum of parts. This can be as simple as vehicles using secondary and tertiary abilities/weapons to provide a smokescreen for infantry, or deploy some kind of protection or a weapon system that infantry can pick up and use nearby the vehicle. It can be as simple as redesigning bases so vehicles can fight in them but need protection from infantry to do so properly. It can be as simple as a proper communications system that lets you guide another unit to a target without the need to be in the same squad/platoon, like an airstrike waypoint that helps aircraft find targets before they render. But the current system which basically tries to segregates infantry from the rest is the antithesis of combined arms.

Realistically there wouldnt be a problem to carry heavier weapons for LA. if a few kilo's is enough to disturb the jumpjet then something as simple as a harsh gust of wind would be disastrous. Considering that a jumpjet is build to lift 70+kg of person plus armor and gear off the ground, having +/-7kg more (for the heavier 200+round SAW's!) Would be peanuts.

Also "light" infantry carries the most weight with them at a time. They carry all their gear with them, while heavy infantry stows their gear in vehicles. In fact, Commando units are counted as light infantry, even though they are trained and armed with the most types of equipment including heavy portable mortars and the like.

MANA turrets are more like a SMG on a tripod. HMG's would be a .50cal machine gun for example.

What? How? When? Where? All that happened is that they got a weak Rocklet rifle which is good in combination with C4 and unattentive players. They have never surpassed the HA in usage since the HA still plays the exact same role as before. A dissapointing AV user with a solid LMG selection and a shield for tanking.

The bullets dont leave at unrealistic angles. It is a way to simulate the character's imperfect aim during hipfire without throwing the user's aim around or teleporting the gun into the position(s) of the bullet exiting the barrel. When going ADS a portion of the COF is turned into recoil that you can try to minimize yourself.

Since rendering and simulating a 100% realistic gun handling would require 4 magnitudes more resources and would not add much to the game, its a good compromise.

Also if you DONT want to use realism as to why LMG hipfire isnt as good as the other weapons the answer is simple: its for balance. Having LMG's that are superior at almost every single trait compared to other weapons is not good game design. In fact even the devs recognize that, as at some point they reduced the ability of several LMG's to fire in CQC.

(PS2 is all about accuracy, bullets deal little damage)

The LMG's "strength" of having large magazines is worth jack in PS2.
Because all the weapons refill their magazine in approx. 3 seconds. So, LMG or rifle, they both provide the same firepower because during breaks in engagements which happens always and you usually don't use more than 30 bullets, any gun can refill it's magazine in 3 seconds - refill.
If you don't understand where I'm trying to get to....Basically if all the guns were reworked to instead have magazines, like for example 8 magazines for the rifles and after each reload you'd lose 1 (instead of refilling the same magazine), then that would be a whole different story, you wouldn't be able to just reload every 5-10 rounds you shoot, and then the LMG would be superior in outputting firepower.
Currently, the LMG excels at at only one thing, that is worth nothing.

But anyways it's all stupid cause if you want to suppress with firepower play the Engineer, he deploys a turret with an impenetrable shield in 4 seconds...But the Heavy Assault is the only class that has a shield on the move, so the advantage is moving forward, breaking through, and usually you need good hipfire and damage and why not, make the HA cost Nanites.
Basically so many things can be done.


And speaking of combined arms, one of the main reasons for the game being such a mess is because the vehicles can be purchased like a can a coke from a convenient store, and the same way they are disposed.
They don't feel special, they don't play anything special, easily spammed. How do you plan implementing this crap into the objective?
The vehicles must be special, something the team cares about, rare...This is what the outfit assets should have been about. Then, you would have teamplay with combined arms or a step towards it.
This may have even fixed many other issues, of zergs and so on.