[Suggestion] T7 MCG

And less magazine size and sustained fire accuracy.

The MCG has a very specific job, and that job isn't to win 1v1s. It shouldn't be equal in 1v1s to the guns designed to win 1v1s.

If it was, then for what reason would you use anything else? If you find yourself using the MCG for some scenarios and other guns for others, then the devs have done their job.

No and no. MCG effective range is further. With BRRT its ROF is higher than Armistice, 143 vs 125 damage, not to mention mag size.

Right, but right now it doesn't provide me with a unique niche that means I use it over other choices, even the T9 CARV with good aim for headshots makes the MCG obsolete. A butcher provides higher overall ammo and better accuracy, the MCG only surpasses it in that it is easier to use but no where near as efficient.

It also takes approx 1.4s or so to spin up to max RPM at which point you're either likely dead from lower ROF vs higher ROF guns or pre-firing at which point you will only kill players who aren't going for headshots, even a TX-1 Repeater will outgun an MCG up to about 25 - 30m.

because republicans are all insane, soooo ...

why replace ADS with spin up? that basically makes laser sight the only viable attachment unless you think limiting the MCG to shotgun ranges is viable...

I would just let it do both, ADS spins up your weapon. A laser sight user that wants full speed can simply release ADS after firing, exmag and BRRT users have to choose ADS or hipfire based on range (while suffering movement penalty at longer ranges or when choosing wrongly) and have the advantages of their respective attachments to compensate.

the ESHA guns aren't strong enough to worry about a buff being too much...

It takes 5 shots to spinup MCG from 600 to 900+ with BRRT, which means 0.5sec. 5 shots = 715 damage, your opponent has lost 2/3 of its health. Of course Armistice does 875 damage for the same time, but 6 meters effective range is piss poor.

MCG is not an "ambush someone 1vs1 and win". It's "Get your shield up, step from the corner, spray till 3 of them get shred to bits, die happily."

First threads about the Lasher being bad at 1v1s, now threads about the MCG being bad at 1v1s...
You guys know not every weapon in the game has to be a deuling weapon, right? Yes, the CARV is better for 1v1s. So take the CARV if that's what you're planning on doing. Take the MCG if you're planning on melting squads while your teammates cover you. And if the MCG were buffed to be as good as the CARV in 1v1s, why would anyone use the CARV ever again?

Exactly heavy weapons are more like support weapons to harm concentraded groups of players. They are very situational.

Still it hurts a little bit that you carry a badass heavy chaingun and anyone with a stock carbine can deal more damage.

Right, since they're all in the "heavy gun" category, they should all be the same, right? We should make all three AoE weapons, or all three chainguns, or all three shotguns. That way everything will be fair and boring!

Honestly the Jackhammer is my least favorite of the three. Sure, it's effective and it's a good 1v1 weapon. But it's just like any other 'normal' weapon. It's not unique like the MCG or Lasher; there's nothing you can do with it that you can't do with any other normal gun. Borringgg.
But it seems like all VS and TR want is to turn their ES guns into boring 1v1 weapons too, "because Jackhammer!", as if there aren't enough of those to go around already.
...
Booooo-ringggggg!

Sorry, I can't hear u over my sustained fire, and since I reload a magazine and not a tube, like the Baron, there's not enough time for you to talk then either...

I really wanna stop ****ing with u, but ur just taking it so well...