Rapid Fire needs to be patched.... but by how much?

#1known2FAILPosted 2/1/2013 3:14:04 PM
How much range should it lose? - Results (37 votes)
50% (current)
16.22% (6 votes)
6
25%
24.32% (9 votes)
9
15%
8.11% (3 votes)
3
10%
5.41% (2 votes)
2
0%
45.95% (17 votes)
17
This poll is now closed.
I was thinking about this earlier... I guess it's a coincidence that a topic about rapid fire is on the front page but I'll post this anyway. Rapid fire does increase recoil.. However it also decrease range by a whopping 50% (I think). If so do you think that's OK? Should it be patched for the better? If so what range loss SHOULD it have?
---
I knew FMGs would be OP before the game came out:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/995751-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/59204323
#2Zero IXPosted 2/1/2013 3:23:05 PM
The idea is that you exchange range for power, so naturally you'd face diminishing returns with guns that were already intended for close range, i.e. SMGs. It's actually viable for a few LMGs, on the flip side.

Personally it should have just been replaced by a more functional attachment and not be an option for SMGs. Fire rate is one of the biggest differentiating factors for SMGs, i.e. if you want MP7 to be rapidfire you might as well just use the Skorp instead.

If you make the range reduction favorable it would instantly leap to one of the best attachments for SMGs.
---
"An Incandescent Revelation in a World of Darkened Forms"
The bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame
#3known2FAIL(Topic Creator)Posted 2/1/2013 3:28:16 PM
Zero IX posted...
The idea is that you exchange range for power, so naturally you'd face diminishing returns with guns that were already intended for close range, i.e. SMGs. It's actually viable for a few LMGs, on the flip side.

Personally it should have just been replaced by a more functional attachment and not be an option for SMGs. Fire rate is one of the biggest differentiating factors for SMGs, i.e. if you want MP7 to be rapidfire you might as well just use the Skorp instead.

If you make the range reduction favorable it would instantly leap to one of the best attachments for SMGs.


True to an extent. I would want a 25% loss. That is enough to really hurt range but not LMAO ridiculous. Plus that would really benefit LMGs and make them better overall than benefit SMGs since LMGs have nice range. Cutting it in half really hurts them and makes Rapid Fire not worth using at all.
---
I knew FMGs would be OP before the game came out:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/995751-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/59204323
#4SullyTheStrangePosted 2/1/2013 3:37:43 PM
Seriously? Just think about this. The Skorpion with Rapid Fire has an ROF of 1893 (not sure why, but that's what the wiki says). That comes out to 31.55 bullets a second. The minimum damage it does is 18, which takes 6 bullets to kill. That means you need to hit roughly 20% of your shots in a second long sprayfest for a kill. That's hardly unfair for the gun user.

Considering SMGs already have way more range than they should, I have absolutely no problem with harsh range penalties.
---
All's fair in love and war, kid.