RSC Smg

Comments

  • MarxistDictator
    5282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Yeah I loved it so much I didn’t even use it at all since it’s officially been broken and unenjoyable longer than it was ever outclassed and not worth using. Your entire logic has holes. Not sure why I need to pretend someone with actually 0.8 less infantry KPM knows what guns are good. And this is with him never having to waste time reloading and swapping guns apparently.
  • TheGM86
    930 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The RSC SMG is a really fun gun to use so I am not surprised that min max munchkins would flee from it in terror to use weapons were all they have to do it drag their face across the keyboard for their lauded 0.98 k/d as they pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
  • ashar_saleem121
    1397 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    If I were to summarize the RSC SMG, it wrecks 1v1 in close - short medium. In close range 1v1 with consistent aim, it has no peers.

    It's ceiling is very high, however, it's also not the most accessible gun in the game either. The average player won't be able to compete using this gun since it just takes too much positioning, and too good aim to utilize the full potential.

    For the average player, the mp18, Hellreigel, Ribeye, SMG08 are all better options because the penalty for misses or bad movement are less severe.

    Marxist I know you love to look at the hard stats of every gun and while theoretically youre right about the capability. However in my opinion, ease of use is a stat that does not appear anywhere but is an important factor in determining the effectiveness of any gun for the average user.

    All that being said, I love using the gun when Im afforded the opportunity since I like a challenge and my best round of conquest on this game was 74 - 10 with the RSC SMG optical. But, I do realize that while I may be effectively using the gun, there is no denying I would probably be even more effective using most other SMGs.

    It's a similar situation to the 8.35 Marksman versus any of the other medic guns.
  • MarxistDictator
    5282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    None of those SMGs are as versatile as the RSC SMG which is continuously understated. I understand that it is harder to use, but less effective is not true. The Ribbeyrolles which is your supposed medium range SMG absolutely sucks at medium range, while not being great in close range either. Ultimately it isn’t the best weapon in the kit but it’s far from the worst, sitting comfortably somewhere in the middle. I would prefer it to half the SMG kit on the plain fact that they all do nothing in medium range while vehicle maps are nothing but medium range.
  • Forkbeard84
    1892 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The problem is its only got nine bullets. Nine bullets!
  • ashar_saleem121
    1397 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    None of those SMGs are as versatile as the RSC SMG which is continuously understated. I understand that it is harder to use, but less effective is not true. The Ribbeyrolles which is your supposed medium range SMG absolutely sucks at medium range, while not being great in close range either. Ultimately it isn’t the best weapon in the kit but it’s far from the worst, sitting comfortably somewhere in the middle. I would prefer it to half the SMG kit on the plain fact that they all do nothing in medium range while vehicle maps are nothing but medium range.

    If it's harder to use that means it will be less effective in the average players hands. Most average players need more than 9 bullets per reload to perform effectively.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4540 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 20
    Harder to use = less effective. Period.

    Of course in theory, you can win every one on one and the range is good, but all these endless stats ignore one key factor.

    People miss. Especially with a gun that kicks like a mule.

    I largely agree with Ashar, and definitely agree with Packers, but I would expand on Ashar’s argument.

    It’s not necessarily about the average player. It’s more complex than that.

    The reason why this gun, and many (all?) others that have fewer bullets are considered skill cannons is multivariate. But the two main ones for me are

    1. The consequences of missing, Ie how likely are you to die if you miss the initial engagement.

    2. How effective is it not in one to ones, but against multiple enemies in cqc. We all run into spots or find ourselves in that situation from time to time.

    The probability of dying increases exponentially with every missed shot AND with every enemy in quick succession.

    That doesn’t mean it can’t be super effective, but it needs a relatively cautious play style to be AS EFFECTIVE are many other guns.

    Marxist would have you believe that that a minuscule better TTK is important. But in the vast majority of gun battles it’s not. The players’ positioning and situational awareness makes that ttk difference only marginal, and of occasional use.

    Patronisingly, Marxist would have you believe that it’s because people are not skilled enough. It’s simply not true.,

    It’s that on balance, and using experience, the majority of players die more using this gun, INCLUDING highly skilled players. Including players that I know are EVEN BETTER than Marxist, (know that is hard to believe🤭

    I watch a lot of streamers on BF1 across YT and Twitch. I’ve seen one actively choose this gun. The stats don’t lie. It’s barely used for a reason.




    Post edited by Greeny_Huwjarz on
  • AW2k2
    9 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    For my opinion, a good or a bad weapon depend on you and the gameplay enviroment. Don't try to argue with anyone who can't stand people saying their opinion.
    - Ps: I feel that RSC SMG is good.
  • ashar_saleem121
    1397 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Harder to use = less effective. Period.

    Of course in theory, you can win every one on one and the range is good, but all these endless stats ignore one key factor.

    People miss. Especially with a gun that kicks like a mule.

    I largely agree with Ashar, and definitely agree with Packers, but I would expand on Ashar’s argument.

    It’s not necessarily about the average player. It’s more complex than that.

    The reason why this gun, and many (all?) others that have fewer bullets are considered skill cannons is multivariate. But the two main ones for me are

    1. The consequences of missing, Ie how likely are you to die if you miss the initial engagement.

    2. How effective is it not in one to ones, but against multiple enemies in cqc. We all run into spots or find ourselves in that situation from time to time.

    The probability of dying increases exponentially with every missed shot AND with every enemy in quick succession.

    That doesn’t mean it can’t be super effective, but it needs a relatively cautious play style to be AS EFFECTIVE are many other guns.

    Marxist would have you believe that that a minuscule better TTK is important. But in the vast majority of gun battles it’s not. The players’ positioning and situational awareness makes that ttk difference only marginal, and of occasional use.

    Patronisingly, Marxist would have you believe that it’s because people are not skilled enough. It’s simply not true.,

    It’s that on balance, and using experience, the majority of players die more using this gun, INCLUDING highly skilled players. Including players that I know are EVEN BETTER than Marxist, (know that is hard to believe🤭

    I watch a lot of streamers on BF1 across YT and Twitch. I’ve seen one actively choose this gun. The stats don’t lie. It’s barely used for a reason.




    Agreed on all counts. In a vacuum and without missing shots, this gun is very good.

    But in game, people miss all the time. And with this gun, the penalty for missing is way more severe than every other gun
  • Forkbeard84
    1892 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Harder to use = less effective. Period.

    Of course in theory, you can win every one on one and the range is good, but all these endless stats ignore one key factor.

    People miss. Especially with a gun that kicks like a mule.

    I largely agree with Ashar, and definitely agree with Packers, but I would expand on Ashar’s argument.

    It’s not necessarily about the average player. It’s more complex than that.

    The reason why this gun, and many (all?) others that have fewer bullets are considered skill cannons is multivariate. But the two main ones for me are

    1. The consequences of missing, Ie how likely are you to die if you miss the initial engagement.

    2. How effective is it not in one to ones, but against multiple enemies in cqc. We all run into spots or find ourselves in that situation from time to time.

    The probability of dying increases exponentially with every missed shot AND with every enemy in quick succession.

    That doesn’t mean it can’t be super effective, but it needs a relatively cautious play style to be AS EFFECTIVE are many other guns.

    Marxist would have you believe that that a minuscule better TTK is important. But in the vast majority of gun battles it’s not. The players’ positioning and situational awareness makes that ttk difference only marginal, and of occasional use.

    Patronisingly, Marxist would have you believe that it’s because people are not skilled enough. It’s simply not true.,

    It’s that on balance, and using experience, the majority of players die more using this gun, INCLUDING highly skilled players. Including players that I know are EVEN BETTER than Marxist, (know that is hard to believe🤭

    I watch a lot of streamers on BF1 across YT and Twitch. I’ve seen one actively choose this gun. The stats don’t lie. It’s barely used for a reason.




    Agreed on all counts. In a vacuum and without missing shots, this gun is very good.

    But in game, people miss all the time. And with this gun, the penalty for missing is way more severe than every other gun

    Yep the gun is fun and maybe even good if you want a challenge but there are more optimal gun choices available.

    The RSC smg as an smg is outclassed by most of the other smgs. As an smg it sucks. It has 9 bullets, long double reload, high recoil and a slow rate of fire.

    Marxist you obviously know a lot about gun performance. I often learn from your posts. But then you take these weak and strange devils advocate positions. I feel the need to filter what you say. I saw you the other day arguing hard for the merits of maining the peacekeeper as if it has many advantages. That makes me wonder if you know how or want to draw the right conclusions from your wealth of gun data. Maybe take a step back, look at the raw data and reassess.

  • PackersDK
    916 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Surely nobody can seriously claim that after 4 years of BF1 some Assault Class class gun has flown under the radar, and is in matter of fact superiour to most other assault class guns?

    If it was that good, people would use it. That seem like a simple statement, no numbers or stats attached to that point, but we all know it is true.  

    The game isn’t 4 weeks or 4 months old. Players have quite clearly gravitated towards certains guns. The RSC smg isn’t even close to most used. If the gun does well according to stats, then the right thing to do is ask why players still are not using it, not stamp your feet, pout and insist it’s the real deal and we’re just not getting it. 

    Perhaps we can as a minimum all agree that hard stats isn’t everything?

    Instead of stats, I’d love to hear why after 4 years nobody is using this “God” gun. Preferably without resorting to haughty opinions about the playerbase’s IQ or BF1 abilities. 
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4540 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    PackersDK wrote: »
    Surely nobody can seriously claim that after 4 years of BF1 some Assault Class class gun has flown under the radar, and is in matter of fact superiour to most other assault class guns?

    If it was that good, people would use it. That seem like a simple statement, no numbers or stats attached to that point, but we all know it is true.  

    The game isn’t 4 weeks or 4 months old. Players have quite clearly gravitated towards certains guns. The RSC smg isn’t even close to most used. If the gun does well according to stats, then the right thing to do is ask why players still are not using it, not stamp your feet, pout and insist it’s the real deal and we’re just not getting it. 

    Perhaps we can as a minimum all agree that hard stats isn’t everything?

    Instead of stats, I’d love to hear why after 4 years nobody is using this “God” gun. Preferably without resorting to haughty opinions about the playerbase’s IQ or BF1 abilities. 

    Lol. Very good.
  • MarxistDictator
    5282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 20
    I never said it was the best, only that it is middle of the pack for SMGs and is ultimately underrated for being versatile. I don’t care to upset whatever hierarchy you worked out for yourself, only to point out that it has a very valid and flexible niche, performing well out to medium range even which is a complete anomaly for the assault class. 144ms potential TTK, for 20m. It’s still 3 hit killing when most SMGs are about to hit 6 shots to kill. This is literally a lot more than I can say about guns like the Ribbey (which is just a rebranded MP18 that is even worse at close range) or the Hellriegel (a massive downgrade from the MP18 for the benefit of 100 RPM). I don’t consider the trench carbine, Automatico or M1912s very hot either. Therefore the RSC SMG is solidly mid tier for SMGs in effectiveness, primarily because it brings something new to the class that isn’t just being a rebrand of an existing better gun.

    Also if you’re out stay gone this is like 5 times you returned to peanut gallery other comments because your feefees have been bruised. Don’t let the door hitya where the good lord split ya.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4540 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    More stats. Yawn.

    Let’s agree that it’s a solidly mid-tier gun that no one likes except a few stat obsessed players like you.

    There. Fixed it.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4540 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Off to play some some battlefield tonight. What is everyone else doing, apart from memorising the Symthic website?
  • MarxistDictator
    5282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    What a stupid post, this is a thread talking about the SMG so obviously I would point to actual tangible facts and not ‘well if you keep missing with a low RoF gun with only vertical pull it’s bad’. I would also like to see which SMGs beyond the obvious SMG 08/18, MP 18 and Thompson could do better (considering the rest are all 100% outclassed by these at all times). The RSC SMG has its own niche within the kit that it occupies by itself because the only other ‘mid range SMG’ the Ribbeyrolles is completely pathetic and a hit marker quest inside closer distances even. So it’s a good gun. Never said it was the best, only that it is cool and plays it’s own niche entirely and does that well. Which still hasn’t been addressed either, just angry comments about elitism while you keep talking about how many guns you 100S and people insisting I claimed it was the best gun in the game period. Apparently it going unused by the community is our proof it’s bad when that same rubric tells us the 1916 is the best medic rifle instead of one of the worst as we all know it actually is.
  • TheGM86
    930 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    If you ignore the differences between weapons and just take player skill into account....stuff.

  • ashar_saleem121
    1397 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TheGM86 wrote: »
    If you ignore the differences between weapons and just take player skill into account....stuff.
    (Image)

    You dont judge how good a gun is based on how the best players use it. You judge it against the average player. And for the average player this gun wont do well for them.

    Ease of use has to be taken into account even if it isnt a stat on symthic
  • MarxistDictator
    5282 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Then it being powerful and easy to use in CQB since it is an SMG would surely be of note. Along with it having more range than one, so you can win gunfights without being in melee range like the other SMGs.

    I meme’d like 5000 kills with it before they buffed it in May but after they did it acquired its own gameplay niche that the assault kit completely lacks because all the SMGs and shotguns suffer from sameness. Sort of like the pre TTK update M1912s which had an even lower TTK in that same 20m range and the good accuracy to use it. But because it’s like tap firing off rounds with a 1907 with a faster full auto it’s even better.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4540 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    What a stupid post, this is a thread talking about the SMG so obviously I would point to actual tangible facts and not ‘well if you keep missing with a low RoF gun with only vertical pull it’s bad’. I would also like to see which SMGs beyond the obvious SMG 08/18, MP 18 and Thompson could do better (considering the rest are all 100% outclassed by these at all times). The RSC SMG has its own niche within the kit that it occupies by itself because the only other ‘mid range SMG’ the Ribbeyrolles is completely pathetic and a hit marker quest inside closer distances even. So it’s a good gun. Never said it was the best, only that it is cool and plays it’s own niche entirely and does that well. Which still hasn’t been addressed either, just angry comments about elitism while you keep talking about how many guns you 100S and people insisting I claimed it was the best gun in the game period. Apparently it going unused by the community is our proof it’s bad when that same rubric tells us the 1916 is the best medic rifle instead of one of the worst as we all know it actually is.

    You want to point to 'tangible facts?'. OK

    You yourself said that "it is harder to use", and that is frankly the end of the debate. But lets look at some actual data and see what it tells us:

    1. The gun accounts for a TINY fraction of the Assault class usage; by time use - Only 0.35% of total time using assault guns are spent with this gun. There are 20 assault guns. Even if each gun was used equally that would equate to 5% so the gun is used 14x less than average. It is used by only a TINY number of people. I guess there are a lot of stupid people out there. 

    2. More interesting this stat in the context of accuracy. The two variants of the RSC SMG are actually in the TOP 5 assault guns.........hey what's not to like? This gun is a beast right?

    3. Now let's look at the kills stats: Despite the gun being used for 0.35% of the time, it only accounts for 0.25% of kills. If the gun was just average it would account for a similar percentage  of kills, but it actually performs at nearly 30% below par in terms of kills vs time spent. 

    So despite it's fantastic accuracy - Top 4 of assault guns:

    1. No one uses it
    2. People cant make kills with it. 

    Marxist - just imagine the player you could have been if you hadn't spent weeks banging your head against a brick wall using this gun.

    But rest assured , we all know that you are a great player......Like I said in my very first post - people use it to boost their own ego and seek kudos, nothing more. 

    Now for completeness, lets look at the gun that you were really snobby about; the Selby 1916. 

    It is used 10% of the time by medics, but accounts for 12% of kills.  The gun overperforms. So actually the converse of what you say is true - smart players use the selby, and people that like handicapping themselves like using guns like the RSC SMG.

    But its ok  - you got to brag about using it in the forums..........so those hours were worth it. 
Sign In or Register to comment.