Project Reality Forums

- Is the whole purpose of the weapon not simply to put a high amount of fire down and suppress, not act as a an automatic sniper?

- Should these weapons not be fired in bursts to be accurate rather than 70~ rounds fired consecutively and still being insanely accurate?

-If this weapon is so good in real life, why is it not issued as a the standard weapon - Imo the obvious reasons why it is not should be taken into account ingame.


I dont see how you can argue that its 'overpowered' in real life and so it should be the same in the game when there are so many other examples of the opposite ingame ---- for the sake of balance.


Is it really realistic that someone with a SAW could honestly drop to the floor, deploy, sight up and kill me - with accurate fire - Before I was able to shoot him with an AK - with accurate fire at say under 50m?

Tim270 wrote:
Is it really realistic that someone with a SAW could honestly drop to the floor, deploy, sight up and kill me - with accurate fire - Before I was able to shoot him with an AK - with accurate fire at say under 50m?

He might, he might not, but thats a problem with the AK, not the SAW.

Tim270 wrote:- Is the whole purpose of the weapon not simply to put a high amount of fire down and suppress, not act as a an automatic sniper?

A single shot will be as accurate as any other comparable weapon, and while it may have a slight accuracy increase over regular rifles I don't believe it has the same 600m accuracy as an actual sniper rifle. I've always been able to hit a target with an acog rifle at the same distance as the auto rifle, just not suppress it as well.

- Should these weapons not be fired in bursts to be accurate rather than 70~ rounds fired consecutively and still being insanely accurate?

I'm fairly certain the firing characteristics are based on real world usage, ie still very accurate after a lot of firing. Have you noticed a standard assault rifle is just as accurate after burning through 5 clips on auto?

-If this weapon is so good in real life, why is it not issued as a the standard weapon - Imo the obvious reasons why it is not should be taken into account ingame.

There's the much more expensive, heavier, faster fired bullets from the auto rifles. A regular assault rifle is more versatile and you don't usually need to be throwing as much heavy ammunition downrange. There are only 2 'reloads' and one kit available per squad for a reason.

I dont see how you can argue that its 'overpowered' in real life and so it should be the same in the game when there are so many other examples of the opposite ingame ---- for the sake of balance.

A good point. I think the goal was to make them much more powerful to make it a true fire support weapon. In real life people don't carefully fire back when they think the enemy might miss, which makes most other weapons much more effective than they should be, so to make the auto rifle even more of a fire support weapon it needs to be more powerful than that.

Is it really realistic that someone with a SAW could honestly drop to the floor, deploy, sight up and kill me - with accurate fire - Before I was able to shoot him with an AK - with accurate fire at say under 50m?

You should be able to kill him first, the AK only has a 2 second settle time on ironsights. At 50m an autorifle hitting the ground should be one giant head target and completely inaccurate for a few seconds.

I think you might be approaching the situation incorrectly. I usually win against an auto rifle in close quarters if he is not already set up, only losing out if I rush myself instead of counting to two. If he is at range he is supposed to be more effective than you.

You should not be able to put the saw in undeployed mode and run around a corner and take out the guy camping the corner who is sitting just 10m away while walking (in muttrah). The undeployed saw is a close quarters beast. Just walking around with it, it keeps just enough accuracy to be able to throw some bullets and kill anything within 20m. I used it once while running around in bi ming, I was unstoppable. I killed a squad and half just by sprinting, spotting, crouching and fireing killing them while they tried to take aim. The saw does need nerfing, but only in undeployed mode.

I posted a link in the third page to a post where i answerd all of your question. But since you obviously can't open a link i repost the text that concerns your questions.

Tim270 wrote:- Is the whole purpose of the weapon not simply to put a high amount of fire down and suppress, not act as a an automatic sniper?

In short, no, it was desinged to kill large amount of infantry, see world war one for more information. The main purpose is not to suppress the enemy, it is to kill. This is a really common misconception, this and that recon can't do combat. Seriously why would you design a personal weapon capable of firing full auto accurate fire over 800meters with over 500 rounds and then tell the operator not to kill any enemines but instead let his comrades with puny rifles try to do that? SERIOUSLY did you think on the western front ww1 during an enemy assault they went "OH don't kill the enemies with the machinegun, only fire around their toes to suppres and i get the 500 men large company with my trusty repeater rifle!!!!" God, people somtimes i wounder if you think at all....

Tim270 wrote:- Should these weapons not be fired in bursts to be accurate rather than 70~ rounds fired consecutively and still being insanely accurate?

Yes they should and they are in game, but on longer ranges it is reccomended to fire up to 25 shoot bursts irl.

Tim270 wrote:-If this weapon is so good in real life, why is it not issued as a the standard weapon - Imo the obvious reasons why it is not should be taken into account ingame.

This seantence just makes me angry at you, but i will post a response from my link. Short answer is that it is expensive and you can't carry AT weapons/other things (mines,squad radio, explosives, ATmissile, AA missile, Sniper rifle etc etc) at the same time as a machinegun.

"Qoute Sirex, from the link you failed to read"
"It's a machinegun what do you expect? A machinegun is the ultimate hand-held anti-personal weapon. A mg irl is better at ranges up to 700-800 meters. Ordinary riflemen often don't receive training on to hit a target above 500 meters and often not above 300 meters while almost every mg gunner gets trained to shoot at 800 meters and that with iron sights! The few things an assault rifle is better at is logistical not using so much ammunition and still can be semi effective compared to a machinegun and having a much cheaper weapon then a machinegun (often an assault rifle is 10 times cheaper then a machinegun) and have a easier time to deploy handgrenades. One of the strength of a an assault rifle is to get the first shot of if you have contact with an enemy, it is easier to have the a rifle sighted and get the first shot of, but in turn machinegun can fire unsighted and guide the weapon by the dust that the bullets create in the ground.

That is the reason why many nation armies don't have pure riflemen. In a Swedish mechanised infantry rifle squad of 6-7 people we have 2 mg gunners (M240) 1 two man grenaderifle team (Carl Gustaf m48 ) with assault rifles and 2 squad leaders with an assault rifle (AK5 (Swedish version of FN FNC80)) and both of them carry a AT4 and then we may have an extra soldier with an assault rifle and a AT4. No pure riflemens."

Tim270 wrote:I dont see how you can argue that its 'overpowered' in real life and so it should be the same in the game when there are so many other examples of the opposite ingame ---- for the sake of balance.

But it is overpowered inreal life. In the Swedish army which is a manly organisation as opposed to the US marines we issue the M240 as a one man weapon which is used in assaults, even in Urban figting. So the answer is that irl a machingun is overpowerd compeared to a automatic carbine.

Tim270 wrote:Is it really realistic that someone with a SAW could honestly drop to the floor, deploy, sight up and kill me - with accurate fire - Before I was able to shoot him with an AK - with accurate fire at say under 50m?

No, but that is the games fault. But a SAW should almost win over you in any situation if you only have an automatic carbine.

Sirex[SWE][MoW] I agree 100% with what you said. The only thing I would like to point out is that the issue here appears to be the LMG's ability to perform as an assault rifle. The problem is the assault rifles, not the MG's.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1201368']
But it is overpowered inreal life. In the Swedish army which is a manly organisation as opposed to the US marines we issue the M240 as a one man weapon which is used in assaults, even in Urban figting. So the answer is that irl a machingun is overpowerd compeared to a automatic carbine.

How many ******* times does it need to be stressed that PR is a game. Combat in PR is nowhere near realistic and PR can never get anywhere close to a milsim. Yes, it's nice that the DEVs gave the MG proper power (as opposed to other FPSs in which MGs are portrayed as horribly innacurate lead pumps), but, as CAS117 said, the assault rifles are not as good as they ought to be in comparison to the MG.

Also, people still fail to see the real reason why MGs are overpowered in the game. LMG gunners in PR can abuse the engine in such a way that defies realism so that they almost always have an advantage even if they shouldn't.

I always felt that switching to deployed mode was basically analogous to the LMG setting up the gun and area around him. Would it be possible to prohibit all WASD movement while in deployed mode, or at least severely reduce speed?Thus, if the LMG comes under fire or want to reposition, they would need to undeploy, get up, move and redeploy.

Another way that would introduce some realistic limitation to the LMG (and all guns... and vehicles) would be if it was possible to have the game cap the rotation speed when prone. Something where regardless of ingame mouse speed or driver level mouse acceleration, when the player is prone, the fastest speed they can rotate is capped at some slow speed. Or maybe limit the angle they can rotate, like in the HMG. Not sure if this is possible with the BF2 engine though.

Like positioning a HMG, the initial location and direction you decide to set up the LMG should be an important factor. It should still be a killing machine in the particular direction, but pretty much completely vulnerable from the flanks.

sprint113 wrote: Like positioning a HMG, the initial location and direction you decide to set up the LMG should be an important factor. It should still be a killing machine in the particular direction, but pretty much completely vulnerable from the flanks.

I think some guy did this a while ago and posted som vids/pictures. The SAW was deployable. That is, he would drop it on the ground, and then crew it like a .50 cal MG. I think it had limited aim angle, so once it was dropped it wouldn't be able to turn 180 degrees in half a second. But I don't know if it was deployable on walls and such like other stationary MGs.

It looked pretty badass tho. Don't know why they didn't use it, but I guess they had a good reason. Perhaps something like this could be done in PR2?

More on topic;

I don't know what can be done to balance out the MG/AR in game. However, some have suggested that the MG is not the problem. I think I agree, the assault rifles need to be looked at again, thoroughly. Then again, the game engine might be the limiting factor here.

sprint113 wrote:Like positioning a HMG, the initial location and direction you decide to set up the LMG should be an important factor. It should still be a killing machine in the particular direction, but pretty much completely vulnerable from the flanks.

This reminds me a lot of how the lmg works in Day of Defeat:Source... undeployed, the mg is crazy inaccurate -- deployed it is deadly accurate, but with a limited coverage area/arc of fire. But... the lmg is also limited in DoD:S, usually only two allowed per side.

This is an interesting thread!

I can't really agree with upping the power of all weapons i think the DEV's have got this right. However maybe an increased spread of the bullets should be applied to the SAW even when deployed and in prone pos. In this way SAW's could act more as a covering weapon, keeping the enemies heads down and even pinning them down rather than acting as a kind of 'automatic sniper' as it seems now. SAW's really should be very inaccurate when fired from a standing position so much so that players would not consider firing from standing position unless targets were very very close and as a desperate effort.

crazyivan wrote: However maybe an increased spread of the bullets should be applied to the SAW even when deployed and in prone pos. In this way SAW's could act more as a covering weapon, keeping the enemies heads down and even pinning them down rather than acting as a kind of 'automatic sniper' as it seems now.

There is a flaw in your concept here, and that is that if I know the SAWs accuracy effectively sucks and only serves to supress me, I am not going to fear it am I, because I know that I have a good chance of not getting hit... 0.8 syndrome again.


If you are getting hit by the SAW to much, you are not taking cover enough... Its almost as simple as that.

Alex6714 wrote:There is a flaw in your concept here, and that is that if I know the SAWs accuracy effectively sucks and only serves to supress me, I am not going to fear it am I, because I know that I have a good chance of not getting hit... 0.8 syndrome again.


If you are getting hit by the SAW to much, you are not taking cover enough... Its almost as simple as that.

This is actually exactly my point, the fear factor needs to be reduced when facing a SAW in for example a 1 on 1 situation. Surely the rifleman should have the upper hand with a lighter more accurate weapon which should be faster to point at and hit the enemy. SAW's in real life are designed to have a larger spread of fire in order to increase the chance of hitting targets, in the same way that shotgun spread helps increase accuracy at close range. As a result shouldn't the SAW be more cumbersome, slower to aim and less accurate than an assault rifle? Giving the cowering rifleman more of a chance.

crazyivan wrote:This is actually exactly my point, the fear factor needs to be reduced when facing a SAW in for example a 1 on 1 situation. Surely the rifleman should have the upper hand with a lighter more accurate weapon which should be faster to point at and hit the enemy. SAW's in real life are designed to have a larger spread of fire in order to increase the chance of hitting targets, in the same way that shotgun spread helps increase accuracy at close range. As a result shouldn't the SAW be more cumbersome, slower to aim and less accurate than an assault rifle? Giving the cowering rifleman more of a chance.

I really can´t see the rifleman thinking he has a chance of facing off a SAW in real life.

You are right, the rifleman does need a weapon that works, the SAW in game is almost fine, rifleman is where the problem is...

Ivan, risk of death equals suppression. Saw's are also slightly more accurate than rifles "in real life" because they have longer, heavier barrels. And why would anyone design any weapon to give the enemy more of a chance? In reality I mean.

And how on earth does giving a weapon with more spread increase the chance of hitting the target? You are using moon logic.

CAS_117 wrote:Ivan, risk of death equals suppression. Saw's are also slightly more accurate than rifles "in real life" because they have longer, heavier barrels. And why would anyone design any weapon to give the enemy more of a chance? In reality I mean.

And how on earth does giving a weapon with more spread increase the chance of hitting the target? You are using moon logic.

They may be more accurate in single fire mode but why are they more accurate than rifles when firing fully automatic? Surely the kick would shift accuracy considerably.

In answer to your question increasing the spread of bullets does not increase accuracy of course but it does in fact increase the chance of hitting your target. This is because you don't need to be rigorously concerned with aiming exactly at your target because the spread and 'randomness' leaves room for error. This exact problem was encountered with the WWII classic bren gun. It was deemed as being too accurate as a support weapon in full auto mode making it difficult to hit moving targets and supress groups of targets.

You are right, the rifleman does need a weapon that works, the SAW in game is almost fine, rifleman is where the problem is...

I agree, https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... ight=scope

I'd go for the deploy underploy method to give scoped rifles a bit of love.

crazyivan wrote:I can't really agree with upping the power of all weapons i think the DEV's have got this right. However maybe an increased spread of the bullets should be applied to the SAW even when deployed and in prone pos. In this way SAW's could act more as a covering weapon, keeping the enemies heads down and even pinning them down rather than acting as a kind of 'automatic sniper' as it seems now. SAW's really should be very inaccurate when fired from a standing position so much so that players would not consider firing from standing position unless targets were very very close and as a desperate effort.

Welcome to Reality. The SAW is a fearsome weapon - if you're not in cover when it opens up IRL you stand no chance.

crazyivan wrote:This is actually exactly my point, the fear factor needs to be reduced when facing a SAW in for example a 1 on 1 situation. Surely the rifleman should have the upper hand with a lighter more accurate weapon which should be faster to point at and hit the enemy. SAW's in real life are designed to have a larger spread of fire in order to increase the chance of hitting targets, in the same way that shotgun spread helps increase accuracy at close range. As a result shouldn't the SAW be more cumbersome, slower to aim and less accurate than an assault rifle? Giving the cowering rifleman more of a chance.

A lighter more accurate weapon or no it's not realistic or conducive to good gameplay for a rifleman to be in the position to charge a dug in machine gunner and win. Although I don't share the frustration that 'rifles don't hit anything' (watch this tutorial to learn how to use the rifle effectively - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZ1rUFZF5E) I think to help solve this problem deviation on assault rifles could be lowered a tiny amount, and the AR should have to fire in bursts to remain accurate.

So general accuracy of AR stays the same, but deviation/recoil increases with the amount of time that the trigger is held down. Although I'm not sure if such a thing is possible to implement. Also I agree that rifles should be more accurate in CQB (option to remove scope and use ironsight? Pretty sure this has been discussed in another thread) and ARs should be less accurate in CQB - more recoil when undeployed.

Just my opinion based on in game experience and what others have said.

biscuit123 wrote:A lighter more accurate weapon or no it's not realistic or conducive to good gameplay for a rifleman to be in the position to charge a dug in machine gunner and win. Although I don't share the frustration that 'rifles don't hit anything' (watch this tutorial to learn how to use the rifle effectively - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZ1rUFZF5E) I think to help solve this problem deviation on assault rifles could be lowered a tiny amount, and the AR should have to fire in bursts to remain accurate.

So general accuracy of AR stays the same, but deviation/recoil increases with the amount of time that the trigger is held down. Although I'm not sure if such a thing is possible to implement. Also I agree that rifles should be more accurate in CQB (option to remove scope and use ironsight? Pretty sure this has been discussed in another thread) and ARs should be less accurate in CQB - more recoil when undeployed.

Just my opinion based on in game experience and what others have said.

I'd have to agree with you about your solution actually. It seems that it only needs this to just tip a bit more favour on the side of the rifleman. One of the tips in PR states that you should fire the LMG in short 3 bullet bursts to prevent excess recoil, however it doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the game if the trigger is held until the magazine is empty... even when standing up (deployed mode) which seems rather unrealistic.