So I tried the STG.

2»

Comments

  • The_BERG_366
    2816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    think your both right.
    They are easy to use and are very effective since accuracy/range/damage are usually high and makes them best for open maps, so that's actually why most use those guns.
    However i don't watch streams much but i did find a few streamers who admitted to having them set up and using them occasionally, so if a streamer admits to it i'd imagine a load of randoms also have them installed.
    Having said that, the macro's wouldn't help enough to make a difference, average player vs average player with a macro it may help a tiny bit, they may get an extra bullet they wouldn't normally but for anyone even slightly above average they won't make a difference.

    So really it's not both being right as the macros aren't the reason why SARs are better, which was a claim mentioned here. Whether or not people have them, I don't see how they make a big difference at all since its really not that difficult to tapfire at max RPM (even with the highest RPM SARs, the m1a1 and ag/m42).
    There was more than one data point in those reply's, you want to discuss sentence structure?

    -Macro's exist and people use them with those rifles
    -You don't need macro's to use them well

    Whats hard about understanding that there's 2 different points here and both are right.
    thats not an accurate representation of what was said. The statement was "SARs are only better because a lot of people use macros turning them into auto rifles... ". This is an implication, which is either true or false. it goes "people use macros" <=> "SARs are better". This implication is clearly false, no matter if one of the statements is true or not. It is not right or partially right because "people use macros" is generally a correct statement. 

    if i claim that the only reason why this game was not economically successful if becasue i don't work at DICE then this is simply wrong. Yes i don't work at DICE but that doesnt make my statement true or partially true. its wrong, as simple as that. And the statement above works entirely analogical to that. 
  • Matty101yttam
    1466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    think your both right.
    They are easy to use and are very effective since accuracy/range/damage are usually high and makes them best for open maps, so that's actually why most use those guns.
    However i don't watch streams much but i did find a few streamers who admitted to having them set up and using them occasionally, so if a streamer admits to it i'd imagine a load of randoms also have them installed.
    Having said that, the macro's wouldn't help enough to make a difference, average player vs average player with a macro it may help a tiny bit, they may get an extra bullet they wouldn't normally but for anyone even slightly above average they won't make a difference.

    So really it's not both being right as the macros aren't the reason why SARs are better, which was a claim mentioned here. Whether or not people have them, I don't see how they make a big difference at all since its really not that difficult to tapfire at max RPM (even with the highest RPM SARs, the m1a1 and ag/m42).
    There was more than one data point in those reply's, you want to discuss sentence structure?

    -Macro's exist and people use them with those rifles
    -You don't need macro's to use them well

    Whats hard about understanding that there's 2 different points here and both are right.
    thats not an accurate representation of what was said. The statement was "SARs are only better because a lot of people use macros turning them into auto rifles... ". This is an implication, which is either true or false. it goes "people use macros" <=> "SARs are better". This implication is clearly false, no matter if one of the statements is true or not. It is not right or partially right because "people use macros" is generally a correct statement. 

    if i claim that the only reason why this game was not economically successful if becasue i don't work at DICE then this is simply wrong. Yes i don't work at DICE but that doesnt make my statement true or partially true. its wrong, as simple as that. And the statement above works entirely analogical to that. 
    ugh...you are arguing sentence structure..it was a casual remark pointed at specific bit of information not the whole thing.
    sheesh i didn't think i'd need to justify it set up legal precedence as well as meet contractual obligations and underlying fine print, forgive me o forum overlord.
  • DerDoktorMabuse
    457 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yes my argument was very general, too general... so let me be more precise... SARs are only better compared to automatic arms if the "avarage" player use macros... otherwise they are only as good as automatic arms... in the hands of a "really good" player the SARs are better than automatic arms...
  • Bluemoon2393
    218 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    To be fair the STG 43/44 was the best small arm weapon in WW2. So it I think it is right that it should be seen as a great weapon on Battlefield V.

    Perphaps it should have been unlocked as the last weapon in the Assault class.

    What makes this weapon good is you can be accurate with single fire from a distance and also shoot fast at short range. Also reloading the gun was also easy to do.
  • NuttysKunKs
    577 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    fragnstein wrote: »
    (Quote)
    You don't need macros to use them. (idk why any idiot would use them on such slow firing weapons or at all for that matter) You can reach there rate of fire cap but clicking slightly faster than normal. There cap is fairly low.

    Within the macro is an axis adjustment so when it fires the next line of macro will automatically bring your cross hair down before firing the next shot. So with the macro you have a "fully auto" sar with no vertical recoil

    U can tell. No way can someone fire the m1a1 31 rounds perfectly without a drop in click rate.

    Also I swear people have auto heal.

    By the time 2 ZH-29 bullets hit them they’ve healed in between :/
  • DerDoktorMabuse
    457 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Is it even allowed to use the word "macro" in the forum or is it only prohibited to mention those who shall not be named?
  • The_BERG_366
    2816 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    think your both right.
    They are easy to use and are very effective since accuracy/range/damage are usually high and makes them best for open maps, so that's actually why most use those guns.
    However i don't watch streams much but i did find a few streamers who admitted to having them set up and using them occasionally, so if a streamer admits to it i'd imagine a load of randoms also have them installed.
    Having said that, the macro's wouldn't help enough to make a difference, average player vs average player with a macro it may help a tiny bit, they may get an extra bullet they wouldn't normally but for anyone even slightly above average they won't make a difference.

    So really it's not both being right as the macros aren't the reason why SARs are better, which was a claim mentioned here. Whether or not people have them, I don't see how they make a big difference at all since its really not that difficult to tapfire at max RPM (even with the highest RPM SARs, the m1a1 and ag/m42).
    There was more than one data point in those reply's, you want to discuss sentence structure?

    -Macro's exist and people use them with those rifles
    -You don't need macro's to use them well

    Whats hard about understanding that there's 2 different points here and both are right.
    thats not an accurate representation of what was said. The statement was "SARs are only better because a lot of people use macros turning them into auto rifles... ". This is an implication, which is either true or false. it goes "people use macros" <=> "SARs are better". This implication is clearly false, no matter if one of the statements is true or not. It is not right or partially right because "people use macros" is generally a correct statement. 

    if i claim that the only reason why this game was not economically successful is because i don't work at DICE then this is simply wrong. Yes i don't work at DICE but that doesnt make my statement true or partially true. its wrong, as simple as that. And the statement above works entirely analogical to that. 
    ugh...you are arguing sentence structure..it was a casual remark pointed at specific bit of information not the whole thing.
    sheesh i didn't think i'd need to justify it set up legal precedence as well as meet contractual obligations and underlying fine print, forgive me o forum overlord.
    no im not, im arguing with logic. this has nothing to do with "sentence structure" other than sentence structuring being a part of the language and hence influencing what content is expressed. 

    you make this out like its super pedantic while it really isnt at all. Its simply not true that both were right, as simple as that. Its not about interpretation and different contents being expressed by the statement. The statement was objectively wrong, end of story. Logic is absolute and im not gonna pretend that a wrong statement is true or partially true when it isn't.

    If there was room for interpretation i wouldn't have posted my initial response in the first place. Its not about having to be perfectly accurate with everything you say. However this statement was simply wrong and you shouldn't be surprised when this is being pointed out. 
Sign In or Register to comment.