type 95 vs m16

#1joe-deli-jrPosted 11/11/2011 6:45:58 AM
i may be missing something but why does the type 95 outclass the m16 in every aspect? ever since mw 1, the m16 has been inferior to the other burst guns. mw2 the famas was better but if u put a holo sight on the m16 (lowered its spread) they were very similar. black ops the g11 was better then the m16, however the m16 had more range and had better attachments including a silencer.

in mw3 i dont see ANY reason to us the m16 over the type 95. the type 95 does 55 damage to m16s 45. at range, yes the m16 kills in 4 while the type kills in 5 but the rof makes up for that.

i really dont want to be the guy screaming "nerf" already but there is NO balance between the two. just brainstorming here but removing rapid fire would lessen the gap. But as of right now, an iconic gun, second in my opinion only to the ak47 (talking about legacy here) is outclassed in every way making it pointless to use. well actually thats not true, the m16 at least looks MUCH better then the type 95
---
My keyboard skips letters and im tired of going back to correct the errors
#2Rip4DPosted 11/11/2011 7:11:35 AM
The M16 has faster reload, raise and drop times. Those are the only real advantages I see :|
---
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/4430/copyoffinal.gif
Semi-official Third Kazekage of the NUNSG board (Yes, a puppet)
#3BandacootdudePosted 11/11/2011 7:14:52 AM
Why should there have to be balance? That's the nice thing about the modern warfare series, that there is a large amount of weapon variety.

Just look at Black Ops. That game was so balanced that every assault rifle felt virtually the same. *Shudders thinking about it*
---
={!@#$%^&*}=I liVe iN yoUr cOmputeR ={!@#$%^&*}=
#4joe-deli-jr(Topic Creator)Posted 11/11/2011 8:56:37 AM
Bandacootdude posted...
Why should there have to be balance? That's the nice thing about the modern warfare series, that there is a large amount of weapon variety.

Just look at Black Ops. That game was so balanced that every assault rifle felt virtually the same. *Shudders thinking about it*


they dont have to feel the same but if ur going to give the 95 a faster rate of fire (i think 1000 compared to 780) why not give the m16 the 55 damage and the 95 the 45 damage? theyd play differently but one wouldnt be completely out classed.
---
My keyboard skips letters and im tired of going back to correct the errors
#5moorentPosted 11/11/2011 8:58:36 AM
m16 has better long range damage
---
GT= moorent
#6bluetigercamoPosted 11/11/2011 9:15:37 AM
What gun was better than the M16 in MW1? If I remember that gun was OP as hell in that game.
#7TheDeadPenguiPosted 11/12/2011 12:29:34 PM
bluetigercamo posted...
What gun was better than the M16 in MW1? If I remember that gun was OP as hell in that game.

mp5 was pretty beast, and so was the p90 with cold blooded. also the m40a3 with an acog and some decent aim could bring grown men to tears. the m16 was a very powerful gun, i'll agree, but there were still other viable options to combat it.

I'm not going to call the type 95 op but I definitely see it being the main go to gun for a lot of people aside from the obvious silenced ump45. I'm already starting to see it now, the last few games I've played have had at least 2 people rockin' it. Hopefully just bad luck and not a sign of a g11 resurrection.
---
Gamertag: A Dying Penguin