[Guide] You CAN dominate CQC with semi-autos

Discussion in 'Infiltrator' started by TheDudeMachine, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. Ganen

    what you said makes ZERO sense from any logical perspective you can take on it.
    "The fact that most people can't use a semi-auto effectively in CQB" means EXACTLY that it is an ineffective weapon for that purpose.
    there is a reason why people issue different types of weapons for different types of scenarios, each weapon specifications yield different effects and results, and the statistics of the men who wield them is how you can measure how effective that weapon is in comparison to others in each of those scenarios.

    I can say the exact same for many weapons, so can many people of many other weapons, remains the fact that weapons have different behaviors and as such fit better into different purposes.
    the subjectivity you described here bears no relevant meaning whatsoever to the fact semi autos ARE less effective CQC weapons, than automatic ones.
  2. Arcanum

  3. VoidC

    Are you sure about that?
    I almost got araxium medal for Nyx and planed to replaced it with Phantom. I know other empire but anyway semi auto sniper :/
  4. Fishie

    Well, we finally have a dedicated close-range weapon, so there's no need to jury-rig mid-range weapons into close-range. If you have 1000certs/700sc and are looking for close-range weaponry, I definitely recommend giving the SMG a look. It's working fantastic for me. I haven't been a fan of semi-auto weapons, as I either lack either or both the skill or framerate to make every shot count.
  5. hammyhamm

    Correct, although I still prefer the SOAS-20 as it is more flexible at mid-range and CQC
  6. Ganen

    what a constructive post, well done you!
    its obvious that you saying I'm wrong makes it so, right? I mean who needs logic.

    you shape the weapon for the purpose like any tool, you surely don't shape the purpose to the weapon (unless you can't help it, obviously).
    The argument presented was as valid as: "chopsticks are as effective as bug-spray for catching bugs, mister myagi proves it"
    (if you don't get the analogy, even if humorous and exaggerated, its a logic exercise failure on your part, try harder)
  7. Arcanum

    Statement: Most players can't/don't fly ESFs competently. Does that mean ESFs are bad? You're saying it does.

    It's irrelevant if semi-auto sniper rifles are really good for CQB or not. What's relevant is that you're wrong.

    Irrelevant. I hope you will realize the irony with this post.
  8. TheDudeMachine

    I'm about 70% sure. I haven't played the game in a few days though, and I'll be travelling for work for the rest of the week, so I can't test it out any more. It's still 3 shots at close-mid range, and 2 shots provided you get at least one headshot. However, I was getting a lot of 4 shot kills the other day. It was really pissing me off.
  9. Ganen

    not sure if you are just trolling or have severe difficulty on the logic department, in either case I will point out the fallacy in your understanding of what I said.

    premise a-1) there are people that know how to fly, and there are people who don't know how to fly.
    premise b-1) there are people that know how to shoot, and there are people who don't know how to shoot
    premise a-2) the people that know how to fly, will find bombers more suited for bombing missions, and fighters for interception missions, you can do both roles with both planes, but there will always be one better/more suited than the other
    premise b-2)the people that know how to shoot, will find some type of weapons more suited than others for some types of combat scenarios. (in the same fashion of premise a-2 different purposes are better fulfilled with different tools-read-weapons)

    if after this simple logic exercise you still don't get it, there is really nothing more I can think of to help put you eligible for this discussion, keep trying, or wait until you learn basic concepts in school, should it happen that you are a youngling.
    the rest of the post isn't even worthy of attention

    if you are a troll, GG on wasting my time.
  10. Arcanum

    Now you're just trying to save face by pretending I am talking about weapons and their purposes. What is so hard about admitting that you were wrong?
    Let me quote you once again
    A majority being incompetent with a weapon at accomplishing a certain purpose(examples: killing, killing at a close range, killing at long range, killing without getting killed, killing without A2AM, killstreaks) does not necessarily mean it is ineffective at it. Comparisons of "effectiveness" are irrelevant in that statement. That is where you were wrong, because that sentence in your post said it's necessarily true. There is simply no escape from this fact even if you did not mean that, just move on. This pointless argument went on for too long, it shouldn't have existed in the first place. I just pointed out a mistake you made and you're making a big deal out of it as if there was an ongoing attempt to curbstomp your ego.

    The rest of my post? You replied to the entirety of it, I'm not sure if it was intentional or not but you did just implicitly admit your side commentary was indeed irrelevant. Pay attention to what you're doing, this forum is a very very serious business, you don't want make mistakes now do you?
  11. DrTeeth

    Sorry to butt in, but no. You could have any device / tool that is objectively the "best" across a host of metrics, but if it cannot be used by the majority of its intended audience, it is not an *effective* device / tool. Efficacy is primarily concerned with the end result - the proof being in the pudding, as it were, not in specifications of the oven.
  12. aRtFuL

    I know you trying to say that a the major of playerbase do not bother to learn the weaps and their use properly and I do not completely disagree with you on it (there are people who prefers to whine than learn, I'm sure). I don't know what skill level you are at either so I have no desire to get into a debate on a personal level.

    However what you said in the statement above do quite comprehensively defy humans knowledge of science and core concept inventions in general, that's why I feel like I need to interject.

    See, if semi-autos are effective at close range general, machine guns would not have been invented in the first place, and shotguns and SMGs would not have been the primary weapon of choice CQC, by "elite forces" I mind you, worldwide - because everyone would be superior effective with semis if only they learn to use it properly.

    And without the invention of machine guns, there would not have been the need for tanks to be invented.

    And by your logic, had more people been skilled with crossbows and learn to reload faster with it, guns would not even been necessary.

    And if people can all get stronger and use longbows properly, crossbow would've been pointless since it shots slower...

    Things are invented in this world for a reason. There is a reason you and me are NOT living like monkeys in trees right now.

    Fact is, SMGs and shotguns ARE more effective CQC weapons REGARDLESS of skill level - because it requires less skill to learn in the first place, and if skill in it is potentially even more effective than semi-autos in CQC.

    That's why semi-autos are less effective then SMGs and autos in CQC.
  13. Ganen

    though so, you fail at logic exercises, and you also appear to not know what "effective" means, this may help.

    I have no problem admitting I am wrong, it just happens this is not one of those many times that I am, its you who fundamentally misunderstands what is being talked about, read the examples given above by the other posters before this reply, tho I suspect you will fail to understand even their posts.
  14. VoidC

    Phantom's Auto mode in ADS has been fixed. It is semi now in ADS, as supposed to be. I tested it yesterday, maybe the fix was already implemented in game update 2.
  15. MrIDoK

    What are the other alternatives at medium-close range? Semi-auto scout rifles, that are the same as the semi-auto sniper rifles except for lower damage and more attachments (only the laser sight is really useful, though); full-auto scout rifles, that are worse than SMGs at close range but aren't good enough at medium range to compensate for that; SMGs, very good at cqc but lacking at more than 30 meters.
    Semi-auto close-range sniper rifles are simply the best all-rounder weapon for the infiltrator, as it allows an outstanding performance at medium range and, with some practice, can win against any other opponent at close range.

    I must admit that "dominate" is not the best word for it, but you can still be a pretty dangerous (and underestimated) opponent without giving up all effectiveness at range.
    It's like the Gauss SAW, once you realize how to use it at its best it's a real beast.
    • Up x 1
  16. Ganen

    I don't know which is your faction equivalent (but its the bolt action that costed 250c IIRC), the Ghost bolt Action rifle seems to be the most effective medium range engagement rifle.
    it does alot of dmg per bullet, and has the fastest bolt action speed, it may be subjectivity on my part, I don't actually know how much dps each weapon does, but it seems to me that ghost has more dps, or at least not having to worry about recoil appears to give it more dps.

    personally using a 2x/4x zoom on ghost, using shoot-cover while bolt action-shoot again >>>>> time shooting semi autos openly.
  17. MrIDoK

    It's the TSAR-42, for the TR. I have it and i love it. It has a certain Mosin Nagant vibe to it that made me get it instantly.
    The only problem is at close range, it's too inaccurate to shoot unscoped and if you miss you're dead, it's very unforgiving. That's why i'm slowly saving up the certs for the KSR-35, i trialed it and went on a killing spree that i couldn't have had with a TSAR due to some missed shots here and there.
  18. AnuErebus

    Actually it makes perfectly reasonable sense. Let's rephrase it in another context. Most people cannot comfortably run a marathon, that does not mean there aren't people who can comfortably run a marathon. Not everyone is equal in terms of their capabilities, some are naturally or due to training more fit for a certain task than others.

    But since I feel that's not really going to sway you let's hop to stats. For reference bullet damage/rounds per minute comes from the spreadsheet. found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLWc&gid=12

    I've also been under the impression that the headshot multiplier is 1.5x.

    KSR-35, the Terran Repblic's semi auto sniper. Damage per bullet = 400. Rounds per minute = 231 which is 3.75 shots a second. To kill a normal soldier it takes 3 bullets. If we start counting with the the first bullet, time to kill is .53 seconds. Throw in a headshot and it takes 2 bullets, reducing to time to kill to .26 seconds.

    Lynx, the Terran Republic's fastest firing carbine. Damage per bullet = 143. Rounds per Minute = 800 which is 13.3 shots per second. To kill a normal soldier it takes 7 bullets. If we start counting with the first bullet, time to kill is .45 seconds. All headshots the time to kill is .30 seconds.

    Armistice, the Terran Republic's SMG. Damage per bullet = 125. Rounds per minute = 896 which is 14.9 shots per second. To kill a normal soldier it takes 8 bullets. If we start counting with the first bullet, time to kill is .46 seconds. Headshots reduces the time to .31 seconds.

    Haymaker, the Terran Republic's high capacity semi-auto shotgun. Damage per shot 143x6 = 858. Rounds per minute is 250 which is roughly 4.1 shots per second. If we start counting with the first shot, time to kill is .24 seconds. With headshots it's an insta-kill.

    In conclusion. The KSR has the worst time to kill without headshots. With a single headshot though that time to kill beats everything but the shotgun. Even with full headshots, the SMG and Carbine can't match that speed. This is the idealized circumstance in which the KSR proves itself to be a worthwhile CQB weapon. It takes a boatload of skill to land those headshots, but if it's done you can perform well in close quarters. Meanwhile if you can't land those shots, the lynx and SMG are far more forgiving due to the nature of automatic weapons and will be preferred by anyone who can't land those headshots.
    • Up x 1
  19. aRtFuL

    But it doesn't change the fact that ANY of the people differing capabilities will do better running marathon with a good par of running shoes. Otherwise, shoes will never have been invented IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    That's what he is trying to say, and that's you and some others are not getting and instead getting bogged down into a debate of skills.

    Okay lets remove human factors here. Does firing several guns at the same time side by side covers more area than firing 1 gun? Yes? Well that's what shotguns essentially are.

    Does firing 3 guns do more cover more ground vs time than firing 1 gun if both was given 10 secs to fire them? Yes? Well that's what and SMG and automatics is.

    Things are invented for a reason. Automatics are not invented just because they sounded good. They ARE more effective REGARDLESS of human factor.
  20. AnuErebus

    A person comfortable running barefoot would perform the same. It's a matter of preference, shoes make it easier for more people to run marathons.

    It's a debate as to whether it's effective or not. Effective means it can be used in the situation. Given the time to kill it can be used effectively. I think you guys are getting bogged down in the idea that if everyone can't use it it sucks.

    All I'm going to say in response to this is look at the stats I posted. Not sure why I try explaining things sometimes...