Login

russian armor

LMG Aim time

The aim time of LMGs should be increased to decrease the effectiveness of A-moving blobs...
Option Distribution Votes
64%
36%
Total votes: 42
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
14 May 2016, 04:17 AM
#1
14 May 2016, 04:51 AM
#2
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

Yes, but only if they will be more effective after that.
14 May 2016, 05:08 AM
#3
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

I like it. This will make lmg a defensive weapon rather than offensive weapon. Not only historical accurate, this idea also promotes the diversity between lmg and bar/fg42.
14 May 2016, 05:22 AM
#4
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I agree with then getting a buff if that happens, maybe keep current aim time only when in green cover to further reinforce the defensive nature
14 May 2016, 05:23 AM
#5
avatar of Woofs

Posts: 11

Wouldn't that put lmg grens and lmg obersoldaten in a bad place?
14 May 2016, 07:38 AM
#6
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

That will be nerf to grenadiers first of all, do you know that?
aaa
14 May 2016, 07:49 AM
#7
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 07:38 AMNEVEC
That will be nerf to grenadiers first of all


needed one. lmg must be similar to mg not alowing to a move with no skill
14 May 2016, 07:55 AM
#8
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

With the coming patch, every faction will have nondoctrinal heavy machine guns that counter A-moving blobs.
aaa
14 May 2016, 08:23 AM
#9
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

With the coming patch, every faction will have nondoctrinal heavy machine guns that counter A-moving blobs.


with that this will be mortar camping every game - noobs dream. Such a shit patch.

Sweepers can now be removed from axis since they wont use them any way, as well as all non-guards docs also safe to be removed as non usable
14 May 2016, 08:31 AM
#10
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

I have no idea why you want to nerf lmg.
14 May 2016, 08:41 AM
#11
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 08:23 AMaaa


with that this will be mortar camping every game - noobs dream. Such a shit patch.



Soooooooooooo players will use more combined arms and more reactionary gameplay instead of going for cookie-cutter builds. Tell me, how is this a bad thing?

14 May 2016, 09:32 AM
#12
avatar of kitekaze

Posts: 378

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 07:38 AMNEVEC
That will be nerf to grenadiers first of all, do you know that?


I think G43 should be stock for grenadier, so they have a choice of mobility or firepower. The G43 upgrade can then be change to something else, maybe unlock an upgrade to 5th man for grenadier squad.
14 May 2016, 09:46 AM
#13
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 05:23 AMWoofs
Wouldn't that put lmg grens and lmg obersoldaten in a bad place?


Well obersoldaten dont need to set up their MG to fire, but it would also nerf (harder IMO) 2xbrens and 2x1919s.
14 May 2016, 09:53 AM
#14
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

- Or give LMGs an accuracy/burst duration penalty when not behind cover
- Or make LMGs a downgrade for short distances
- Or retain LMG damage profile, but make its performance degrade significantly between ranges 30-35 (that way, a-moving will make your troops halt at a sub-optimal distance)

Well. There certainly needs to be some downside to LMGs rather than making them the no-brainer weapons than they currently are.

On the other hand, OST and Brits only have stock access to LMGs to begin with (thus they have no competing options). That, plus the fact that Tommies having terrible moving accuracy (Funny tidbit: a 5-man Vet3 Tommy squad has lower DPS on the move than a 4-man Soviet Combat engineer squad)

Note that one thing that might happen if we increase LMG aiming time by too much is that when you close the distance enough, it will be possible to circle-strafe the lmg-holding model without allowing it to fire back.

Think of this as what happens to snipers when you want them to wipe "that last retreating model" and they keep turning and readjusting. (for comparison the aim time for LMGs is between 0.25 - 0.5 secs, and the aim time for the sniper is ~1.5 secs)
14 May 2016, 10:07 AM
#15
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1



Well. There certainly needs to be some downside to LMGs rather than making them the no-brainer weapons than they currently are.



Did you know that lmg42, lmg34, bren, dp28 and m1919 have weaker close range dps than long range dps? They reduce/keep same close range dps but increase long range, so it's already trade off.
14 May 2016, 10:14 AM
#16
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

...
- Or make LMGs a downgrade for short distances
...


Some Lmgs already use a reverse weapon profiles losing DPS at near ranges. The gren Lmg is not that much better than K98 at point blank ranges. I have made some comment in this type of issues in a thread about small arm fire.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/52782/suggested-improvements-to-small-arms-weapons

Imo LMG upgrade should also come at the price of utility. For instance no more grenades, smoke grenades rifle grenades or AT snares.

Another change implemented could be introducing defensive stance for LMG units (like what riflemen had, but without the suppression) and making LMG effective only in defensive stance. This change not only will stop A moving LMG blob but would also make these unit vulnerable to grenades and mortars.
14 May 2016, 10:23 AM
#17
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 10:07 AMNEVEC


Did you know that lmg42, lmg34, bren, dp28 and m1919 have weaker close range dps than long range dps? They reduce/keep same close range dps but increase long range, so it's already trade off.


I know that LMGs have better long-range DPS than short-range DPS. However, LMG upgrades also have better short-range DPS than the short-range DPS of the weapons they upgrade. Thus, the upgrade becomes a no-brainer.

I am talking about giving LMGs a pre-buff Conscript PPSh trade-off here.

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 10:14 AMVipper

Some Lmgs already use a reverse weapon profiles losing DPS at near ranges. The gren Lmg is not that much better than K98 at point blank ranges. I have made some comment in this type of issues in a thread about small arm fire.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/52782/suggested-improvements-to-small-arms-weapons


I noticed the thread, but I'm not that well informed to actually contribute anything useful there :P

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 10:14 AMVipper

Imo LMG upgrade should also come at the price of utility. For instance no more grenades, smoke grenades rifle grenades or At snares.


Trading utility for weapon upgrades would probably solve 99% of the balance complaints in the game.

OKW: A Schreckblob would be reduced to nothingness without flame/infiltration nades.
USF: There would finally be a reason to consider going for airborne LMGs over Riflemen LMGs.
OST: It's either LMG snipe or rifle-nade to counter those MGs, not both.
UKF: Well; Tommies had no utility to begin with, but the other armies are losing their utility.
SOV: Similar to UKF :foreveralone:
14 May 2016, 10:25 AM
#18
avatar of BlackKorp

Posts: 974 | Subs: 2

If aimtime would be the problem of blobing we all could be glad, but that isn't truly the problem of it wonder why so many voted yes.
14 May 2016, 10:28 AM
#19
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Well obersoldaten dont need to set up their MG to fire, but it would also nerf (harder IMO) 2xbrens and 2x1919s.

Dual Brens for tommies actually grant similar improvement in DPS as single LMG42, because it replaces default rifle, which already is pretty strong at long range.

So if there is one LMG that is actually balanced upgrade, its the Tommie brens as 2 of them add ~8 DPS while single LMG42 adds 6, M1919 adds little less then that and costs 10 more muni.
14 May 2016, 11:14 AM
#20
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 10:28 AMKatitof

Dual Brens for tommies actually grant similar improvement in DPS as single LMG42, because it replaces default rifle, which already is pretty strong at long range.

So if there is one LMG that is actually balanced upgrade, its the Tommie brens as 2 of them add ~8 DPS while single LMG42 adds 6, M1919 adds little less then that and costs 10 more muni.


You number are seem to be abit off, this is dps of tommies are according to firespaks:
2 brens+2 enf 18.2 19.0 19.6 20.2 20.8 21.5 21.8 21.6
4 Endfields 19.1 18.4 17.1 15.9 14.9 13.9 12.7 11.6



2 Brens according to firesparks give 10 DPS not 8.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

557 users are online: 557 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49063
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM