Aye, though I still like ironsights (and whether the view is less cluttered or not is debatable, I tend to lose track of targets and be completely blinded by reflex sights at night). I like my bullets to go where I point the gun.
If you're at those ranges you shouldn't have an LMG equipped. Hell you shouldn't even be an HA unless you're part of a Lancer squad.
Yes, using an LMG at 250-300m is pointless, even might be considered a waste of bullets and time to try to take down someone at 100m without a semi-auto weapon or bolt-action sniper. I think when people mention long range with lmgs they mean somewhere around 50-80m or so, which is a good range for full auto weapons if you've got good skills when it comes to compensating recoil and burst firing. That range is mostly the "niche" range for the 167/200 tier lmgs I feel, as long as your enemy doesn't have a battle rifle, or sniper/scout they're going to have trouble fighting back effectively.
Semi auto weapon - so I need to basically put aside my SVA- 88 and get the battle rifle to fight the enemies using LMG's from range(which can and does exceed 80 M easily at times- i've gotte ninto potshot fights iwht enemy platoons on mountain sides on esamir that were Rendering IN and OUT, because they were at the limit- and they were also firing from range with their LMG's- sometimes getting kills)
Well yes, you CAN get kills, that doesn't really mean you're going to be effective however... At those ranges you're not only going to be doing minimum damage, you're also going to be having to single-shot your weapon, and since you're going to have to let your COF reset after every shot, we're looking at less than 100dps, or 10 seconds to kill someone. I don't really think this is a good idea, in this situation at the edge of render distance, I'd say use a bolt action sniper, I don't think you can kill people in one shot at this range, but... at least you can deal enough damage to be a real threat.
It's more a matter of personal preference than anything. Less than ideal situations aren't uncommon, and you don't always have a choice about what range you are engaged at. Not every base is a biolab. Ursa can still do enough DPS to give you a fair shot at close range, especially since you have to be a heavy to use it, and not much is decisively better at medium or long range. Ursa can reliably land three shot bursts at 100m. Edge of render distance is another matter, but I am still better at those ranges with Ursa than I am with sniper rifles.
The Ursa was my favorite LMG when I played as VS. It has amazing accuracy, laughably easy to control recoil, and a good damage model. Sure it shoots slower than a civil war musket, but having the ability to engage targets past 100 meters with no bullet drop and ******** good accuracy made it fun to use.
Don't forget to press '3' when you are not in direct combat or if you are running towards a battle with no enemies around you. Gotta keep the MLG $$$ up! How else can we feed our kids :/
People dislike the Ursa due to it's stats being so close to the Flares, but the Flare is dramatically cheaper, so most people don't bother trying the Ursa out, and then just stick with the line that the Flare is better because they bought it. The Flare is great in close to medium distances, but the subtle differences between it and the Ursa are what makes all the difference at range. (This argument is a bit like the VX6-7 and the Serpent, the VX came out first, so most people bought it, and then the slight stat differences between the two kept most people from taking that extra step to buying the Serpent, but honestly, the Serpent is the better Carbine, but everybody already had the VX6-7, so you never hear anything positive about the Serpent.) The Ursa was the first LMG I Auraxiumed with, and it's the closest in feel to the TMG-50 (arguably the king of LMGs). I Auraxiumed with the TMG-50 and the SAW and EM6, so I was naturally drawn to the Ursa. I like the harder hitting 167 variety LMGs, and the Ursa doesn't disappoint. I'm using the Flare now only so I can Auraxium with it, but after that i'll probably be back on the Ursa. One area the Flare does excel in is slapping a Suppressor on it, Extended Magazine, Soft Point, and then flying behind enemy lines to the nearest Tech Plant and camping the elevator. It's amazing how long you can be annoying for, and it's an easy way to devastate the enemy's air support.
Every time I have tried it I have been left thinking 'I would be doing better with any other LMG'. It's the main reason I have not bothered with it. It just feels like a lower damage SAW. It is just feeble and looks a ugly, random mess. One day I will have a go at auraxiuming it, just for the sake of finishing off all the LMGs but I'm not ready to put myself through it just yet.
I picked up the Ursa again for a bit last week to see how the scope update/fix affected its performance. It's a better weapon now, noticeably more accurate than before. Chaining headshots is easier - and you pretty much have to chain headshots if you want to remain competitive mid-range due to its low DPS/high TTK. I'll have to use it a bit more but so far it feels like a more viable weapon than it was before the scope fix.
It wasn't really all that bad to Auraxium (I'm finding the Pulsar LSW to be more distasteful), but it really feels like a NC rifle, without enough of the NC perks.
The Flare is the VS' customizable LMG. Whyever their equivalent of the "S" weapons needs to be completely out of their normal damage tier. As such, it gets both ammo types, multiple fire modes, and distinctly subpar stats. There's only very few weapons with fire modes, though I wouldn't be bothered by the Ursa having one. Though unless they replace the Ex-Mags with Heat-Mags, I probably won't use it anymore.
because it costs 1k. anybody who thought it was going to be awesome saved 1k certs for a gun that can be replaced easily by a 250 cert gun. for a 1k cert gun its very bad. if its rpm was higher and its reload speed was lower it might be a decent gun. they just put the wrong stats on it for what its made for.
