i wonder what's the purpose of the 2 machine guns. One shoots faster than the other and there seems to be no dissadvantage of that. Why have both?

And I find the battle rifle underpowered. It feels weaker in everyway compared to the m50. It has high recoil, smaller clip, lacks grenades and the scope isn't for any use becouse it takes too long time to use and you don't much opportunity to use it.

Edit:
Why is the battle rifle so much weaker?

:/

first: the MG with the small bullets is a anti-infantry weapon, the other one is more of a anti-vehicle MG.

second: ... is it even a question? it sound more like a fact.

Well for the battlerifle, you have to ask RedShift why its weaker, since it is 'his' gun.

I'd personally much rather use the SRS900 than the M50 any day...

BATTLE RIFLE IS GOD. Don't forget that.

Battle Rifle kinda sucks in my mind. Too small a clip, and only use is the silenced sniping of it. And even then, way too weak to be a silenced sniper. M50 beats the SRS900 in the assault rifle's job and the R78 wins in the sniping division due to more power (even if you can't silence it).

Really? Last time I remember I shot 2 SRS900 bullets at a tank and it blew up.

Yeah, and it has that insane amount of recoil per shot. Just way to annoying of a weapon to use.

Wait. What?! Oh my god. I think I've realized why so many people disagree with me on balance. We've been playing two different mods the whole time!

NOT!!!

The M50's recoil is much, much more noticeable than the Battle Rifle. I'm at a loss of words here how people could mix that up.

I actually find the M353 (smaller machine gun) to be much more effective than its bigger brother. This will be addressed in the balance thread when I feel like it.

Kein: Play the mod more and you will start noticing the differences

The fast firing machine gun does not do anywhere as much damage and the slower firing machine gun (I always forget their numbers, please RS give them proper names!)

It is far more spammy and is better against weaker targets.

The slower firing machinegun is alot more accurate as well as just deadly. You want this machine gun for more distant attacks and it is awesome to tote this thing around like Rambo.

Keep practicing with both machine guns and you will learn.

As for the battle rifle, I find it pretty useful in alot of situations. How about them GasBags ands WarLords? They are too fast for the sniper rifles and too agile for the M50. The battle rifle of perfect for them.

But I will leave any balance discussions to Kaboodles and his balance thread.

I'm pretty sure you've mixed it up. M50 has practically no recoil. Set both to semi auto and fire and see the recoil. It's just the M50 has a faster fire rate.

Sounds like the tank didn't have many healthpoints left.

It came right out of the powernode, so I'm pretty sure it had full armor.

Sure it wasn't just a tank that was used previously and happened to be at the powernode when you came in? Perhaps a hijacked tank?

And I'm pretty sure two bullets from the AR can't take away 800 hitpoints, considering how many bullets the bots can survive.
Either you experienced a bug or the tank was verrry damaged.

ok.. we did tweak the recoil and stuff for the SRS900 for our patch.. that'll be released sometime..

this is the same old story again.. some will like diffirent weapons to others.. bottom line!!! the 2 MG's are easily compariable.. the damage on the larger one, is alot higher than the smaller one.. this is definatly a personal choice thing.. we'll add as mnay weapon as we please, and people can decide what they like!! thats it..

The thread starter apparently thinks every weapon needs to have an advantage over it's brother. The thing about BW is that the weapons are just meant to be there for people to use. I don't care much about damage, there are just weapons that I like to use because of their look or the sounds. I love the SRS because it has the most powerful sound effect, makes me feel like I'm kicking ass.

But when weapons feels too weak it's not fun to use them.

Feeling weak, and being weak; are two very different things: The SRS is weaker than the M50, but the M50 feels weaker than the SRS.

At least that's my opinion, I judge the feel a big part from the sound effects, because they play a big role in making a weapon feel powerful.

Yes the look and sound of the weapon makes it nice to use bit it must be propotional to it's practical power.

Well, yeah, that is true. Though I don't really worry much about the damage difference, if I find a weapon I just use it if I don't have anything better.

Dude, no. Just no.

Take an M50 and an SRS900. Switch both to burst-fire. Fire a 3-round burst on the M50 at a wall from 15 feet. Now do it with the Battle Rifle. You'll see the M50 has a slightly larger spread, especially when crouched. A crouched BR has practically no recoil.

.... You got my point a little off. Of course the M50 willl have worse recoil after a burst fire round, and that's due to one reason: faster fire rate. Try to fire one round. Individually, the M50 has less recoil. But then when you go firing bursts and full auto, it has more due to the building of recoil being faster from that higher fire rate. Either way, the M50 is much more useful with that M900 on it... SRS just has a silencer and it has to be added manually.

I see your point with the firing rate, but you have to admit it's a moot point. In order to fire the M50 with the same recoil effects as the SRS, you'll have to slow your firing rate down to that of the SRS anyway, negating that firing rate advantage anywhere longer than shotgun ranges.

Complaining about the SRS's recoil is silly because you'll never feel its effect. It's like complaining that the M353's individual bullets don't do enough damage. It won't matter as you'll be firing a lot of them anyway.

In addition, silencer's isn't the BR's best feature, not by a long shot. The scope makes it much more useful at range than the M50. The SRS provides a decent long-range sniping weapon without sacrificing short to medium range capabilities. The M50, on the other hand, is strictly a close-medium range weapon.

EDIT: In addition, the M50 does less damage per bullet than the SRS too.

Sweetness! I can't wait

The problem with the '900 is that it tries to combine two weapons, the M50 and the R78. And by doing that, it's not that great for either job, as it is beaten by either in their respective jobs. The M50's M900 makes it great with short range combat and the larger clip allows for a bit better cover fire than the '900.

The R78 then bests the SRS with its better range, and power over te SRS. Only thing an SRS is good for in sniping is short range sniping, and the silencer. Other than that, the R78 is MUCH better.

In the end, I only use an SRS if I run outta ammo for the M50 or R78 and need to change quickly (the M75 is not an option since I use that only for vehicles or objectives).

The SRS does a fine job at both I think. I mean it does more damage than the M50 per round and has almost no recoil to speak of (unless you're trying to snipe long distances).

Sure, the R78 has more range and power, but you really need to make shots count. You'd need a headshot to really ensure a kill, as targets very often have armor packs or stocked up on N-TOVs earlier on. I know I do.

If you hit a limb and knock off 60 damage (which happens fairly often), he's going to notice it and take cover before you can get another shot. With the SRS, you can ventilate someone before he even realizes what's happening.

That said, I wouldn't mind an upgrade to 24 rounds per magazine. Also, for the love of God please fix the recoil for silenced and unsilenced guns. A silencer should decrease recoil, not increase it. Switch off the recoil values for the unsilenced and silenced SRS and you'd be set.

You see, you are wanting the gun to be more powerful, which is the majority opinion it seems, but I personally want it to stay the same.

I'm effective with it and I like how it operates. I just fire off a 3 or 4 round burst into the torso and typically they are dead. The recoil works to my advantage; I land two body shots and a final finishing shot to the head.

As for silencers changing the recoil, I too don't like that idea. The current state of the recoil works perfectly.

Plus a bigger clip is just unnecessary.

I don't want it to be more powerful. I love the gun as it is (except for the silencer recoil silliness). it's the other guys that are dissing it.

Bigger clip would simply make for more consistent burst-shooting. 20 doesn't divide into 3 evenly, and 21 is just a weird number. Hence 24.

Why do you think the M50 is worse at short range combat and cover fire? It has a freakin' grenade launcher on it to help! Maybe the shots that do hit have less damage, but you can get in more shots than the SRS, making for more damage in the end anyways.

Err.... what do you think sniping is to me? I either use the R78, or the M75 (vehicles). That simple. If you acan't hit the target in the upper torso or head, basically you'd just need to start practicing over again with sniping. Which is what I do a lot, to get my aim up. Same time, the SRS with headshots isn't as useful as the R78 with headshots. And when you snipe, at least make suree you can get in two shots before you think about sniping really. Sometimes they do get into cover before you kill them so then it's wise to allow for 2 shots before they can escape.

Although I do shoot at them if they have time to get to cover if I feel they are extremely high priority targets (flag carrier, bomb runner, anyone in assault not on my team), so the rest of my team can finish them.