Winchester Model 1887 - MW2

[Droogie]

Since we have a lot of CoD: MW2 players on here, I thought I'd make a poll to get a general idea of how CF feels about the Winchesters.

I'm sure everybody who plays Mw2 knows about these things, and, if you are more of a tactical player like myself, hates them.

For those of you who don't know about the Model 1887: Basically it's a shotgun which can be used as your secondary weapon with absolutley soul crushing damage, and nearly the accuary and range of an SMG. You could argue that you are only safe from them at a sniper's distance. Adding the steady aim perk requires the user to fire them with very little aim. If it's shot in the general direction of enemies, you will almost always get a kill, and a lot of times a headshot. Also you can weild two of them with the akimbo attachment, as you will see in the video.

here's a couple clips displaying the ridicolous range/damage of the Winchesters
[YT]RsJm9KlihKA[/YT]
[YT]NyUCbMm1fI4[/YT]

btw, I'm not ranting against Modern Warfare 2. I really like this game, and because of that, I'd like to see these weapons balanced.

 

[awildgoose]

I've only played this game at my cousins so I don't really know much but, why were they even added?
Modern Warfare....
Do you find them in some sort of secret museum or something? (Yes I know about the thing at the end).
But just watching the videos makes me want them made less powerful and accurate at the very least...

 

[Droogie]

^ Not sure why they're in the game tbh. I guess as sort of a novelty. They are pretty sweet guns, but it looks totally ridicolous to somebody sprinting with two of them.

 

[tlarkin]

Well to be honest, if games were realistic, you would go down if you got shot once. However, I realize that developers need to make the game fun and balanced so that is not the case in a game.

I didn't buy MW2 yet, but those Winchester guns are/were chambered in both 12ga and 10ga, and well if you got shot by a person dual wielding two 12ga shotguns, you would die in one hit.

Now, I don't think it is even practical for someone to dual wield those guns. I mean .00 buck has a pretty strong kick and would require both hands for steady aim, .00 Magnum buck or slugs would require even more precision. They look like novelty weapons in the game.

 

[Droogie]

^ I realize that realistically you probably would die from the distance. but as you said, the game needs to be balanced. Few of the guns in the game have realistic attributes, so why should these?

Also the original 12 gauge 1887 model can't fire smokeless shells, and in the game there is no smoke at all. So really they aren't realistic.

 

[Motorcharge]

They don't need to be balanced. Every FPS out there has some weapon people consider cheap and CoD has certainly had them in every game thus far.

As for the smoke, like I said before, it's not that significant. Black powder doesn't smoke like you see in the movies. At most it's a small puff, not enough to effect anything so I don't really get why you keep bringing it up. Black powder weapons in general don't smoke that much unless you're talking colonial era flint lock weapons. Theres also no other smoke effect on any other weapon in the game, it's not just specific to the 1887s.

As for dual wielding them, sure its not tactically a good idea, but it would certainly be effective. 1887s don't have much kick to em. They're small and were designed to be able to be fired one handed from a horse.

Shotguns in CoD are the only weapons that have ever been really unrealistic, it's about time that they are.

 

[Droogie]

Every FPS out there has some weapon people consider cheap and CoD has certainly had them in every game thus far.

So what! Just because all the other CoD's have over-powered weapons, that doesn't justifty having one in Mw2.

As for the smoke, like I said before, it's not that significant. Black powder doesn't smoke like you see in the movies. At most it's a small puff, not enough to effect anything so I don't really get why you keep bringing it up.

I was simply using this as a counter-arguement for your "they have realistic range" arguement. I don't think they should add smoke to the guns, I'm just telling you that in game, these guns ARE NOT realistic.

My aim here isn't for realism. It's for balance! Shotguns in VIDEO GAMES are close range weapons. You should not be able to kill somebody at a medium distance with shotgun in a video game.

Shotguns in CoD are the only weapons that have ever been really unrealistic, it's about time that they are.

I couldn't disagree more. A number of guns in the CoD series have been unrealistc. Almost all of the AR's have too little recoil. The sniper rifles have too much mobility and not enough damage. The range of some of the SMG's is totally unrealistic. The MP40 in WaW, need I say more about that? A ton of the guns use magazines that aren't compatible with their respective guns (judging by the amout of rounds in the mags). Also the fact that almost ANY weapon can be suppressed. But I don't care about any of these things, again balance is more important than realism in most video games.

 

[diduknowthat]

I can tell you it's annoying as hell to get killed by snipers running around wielding that gun in akimbo. I've been killed countless times by them and it's pretty darn annoying.

 

[Droogie]

I can tell you it's annoying as hell to get killed by snipers running around wielding that gun in akimbo. I've been killed countless times by them and it's pretty darn annoying.

the worst for me is somebody using marathon, leight weight, and steady-aim pro, with an SMG as the primary. They freakin fly around the map, you pretty much have no chance at mid or close range.

The other day I was killed by a guy on the top of a building in Favela. I was on the ground level! I was literally sniped by a shotgun. I came very close to rage quitting.

 

[Motorcharge]

So what! Just because all the other CoD's have over-powered weapons, that doesn't justifty having one in Mw2.

Sure it does. Weapons aren't always fair and the games reflect that. Theres no such thing as too effective of a weapon.

I was simply using this as a counter-arguement for your "they have realistic range" arguement. I don't think they should add smoke to the guns, I'm just telling you that in game, these guns ARE NOT realistic.

But your point is, well, pointless. Not having smoke makes them unrealistic? NO gun in the game smokes, no gun in any of the games have smoked. Just like none of the Machine Guns barrels get hot. I'd assume it's a graphical issue that would be too much of a strain. It's not exactly uncommon for graphics to be toned down in multiplayer modes.

My aim here isn't for realism. It's for balance! Shotguns in VIDEO GAMES are close range weapons. You should not be able to kill somebody at a medium distance with shotgun in a video game.

Your aim might not be, but you also didn't develop the game. The CoD series has always been a middle ground for shooters between fantasy and reality. They whole idea is you get the realism of the wars, the weapons, the stories, without the things that detract from the fun for most people like squads, tactics, recoil, negative weapon effect, ect.

I couldn't disagree more. A number of guns in the CoD series have been unrealistc. Almost all of the AR's have too little recoil. The sniper rifles have too much mobility and not enough damage. The range of some of the SMG's is totally unrealistic. The MP40 in WaW, need I say more about that? Also the fact that almost ANY weapon can be suppressed. But I don't care about any of these things, again balance is more important than realism in most video games.

See above. They're both. They've always been realistic in art, ammo, distance, damage (relative to one another), range (except the shotguns), ect
See above for the negative weapon effects. They're toned down for playability.

SMG ranges are fine, look up the actual ranges on em. Nothing wrong with the MP40 in WaW either, they have a range of up to 200m.

As for the suppressors, not every weapon can use them, not even close. None of the shotguns or machine guns can, and most the weapons that do have them would be able to anyway.

If balance is more important then why play a series thats never been about balance?

 

[diduknowthat]

Sure it does. Weapons aren't always fair and the games reflect that. Theres no such thing as too effective of a weapon.

Yeah they're is, if a single weapon is too effective and can only be unlocked by high level players it will ruin the balance multiplayer games.

But your point is, well, pointless. Not having smoke makes them unrealistic? NO gun in the game smokes, no gun in any of the games have smoked. Just like none of the Machine Guns barrels get hot. I'd assume it's a graphical issue that would be too much of a strain. It's not exactly uncommon for graphics to be toned down in multiplayer modes.

A lot of games have smoking machine gun barrels for mounted machine guns, Crysis, Far Cry 2, BF2 etc.

Your aim might not be, but you also didn't develop the game. The CoD series has always been a middle ground for shooters between fantasy and reality. They whole idea is you get the realism of the wars, the weapons, the stories, without the things that detract from the fun for most people like squads, tactics, recoil, negative weapon effect, ect.

That is true, especially with the hard core mode. But the point is that this gun is WAY too over powered.

 

[Motorcharge]

Yeah they're is, if a single weapon is too effective and can only be unlocked by high level players it will ruin the balance multiplayer games.

Like I've been saying, the series isn't, and has never been about balance. Sure, it's balanced to an extent, and the balance with the 1887s is that you don't get them from the start.

A lot of games have smoking machine gun barrels for mounted machine guns, Crysis, Far Cry 2, BF2 etc.

Never said otherwise. My point was that CoD doesn't and hasn't used those effects, at least not on the weapons you carry around.

That is true, especially with the hard core mode. But the point is that this gun is WAY too over powered.

It's not over powered, it's realistic. They've got a muzzle velocity of about 1600 feet per second, tell me that wouldn't kill you from a few yards away.

 

[diduknowthat]

Like I've been saying, the series isn't, and has never been about balance. Sure, it's balanced to an extent, and the balance with the 1887s is that you don't get them from the start.




Never said otherwise. My point was that CoD doesn't and hasn't used those effects, at least not on the weapons you carry around.



It's not over powered, it's realistic. They've got a muzzle velocity of about 1600 feet per second, tell me that wouldn't kill you from a few yards away.

But realism often ruins games. The whole point of games is to offer entertainment. If they wanted to make everything realistic, every game would be hardcore, because there's no way in hell that you can get shot anywhere on your body that's unprotected and continue to run around and shooting/stabbing people.

 

[Motorcharge]

But realism often ruins games. The whole point of games is to offer entertainment. If they wanted to make everything realistic, every game would be hardcore, because there's no way in hell that you can get shot anywhere on your body that's unprotected and continue to run around and shooting/stabbing people.

If thats not your preference, then thats not your preference, but thats like buying Rainbow Six if you don't like tactical games then complaining about how the game was made.

Just because realism in a game isn't something you prefer doesn't make it wrong.

Of course not, which is why it's not a simulator or a tactical shooter, but it's also not like Halo or Unreal Tournament. Like I said, it's supposed to be a realistic to an extent and the realism of the 1887 fits in with the other realistic aspects of the game.

 

[Droogie]

Sure it does. Weapons aren't always fair and the games reflect that. Theres no such thing as too effective of a weapon.

There most certainly is. How about a gun that is a one hit kill at any range with perfect accuracy? Would that not be too effective?

But your point is, well, pointless. Not having smoke makes them unrealistic? NO gun in the game smokes, no gun in any of the games have smoked. Just like none of the Machine Guns barrels get hot. I'd assume it's a graphical issue that would be too much of a strain. It's not exactly uncommon for graphics to be toned down in multiplayer modes.

Forget the damn smoke. The only reason I brought that up, is because you were saying the guns are realistic. I don't want smoke to be added to the game, nor did I ever.

Your aim might not be, but you also didn't develop the game. The CoD series has always been a middle ground for shooters between fantasy and reality. They whole idea is you get the realism of the wars, the weapons, the stories, without the things that detract from the fun for most people like squads, tactics, recoil, negative weapon effect, ect.

Well said, and I agree. I never said that they should make the game more realistic. Just balanced.

See above. They're both. They've always been realistic in art, ammo, distance, damage (relative to one another), range (except the shotguns), ect
See above for the negative weapon effects. They're toned down for playability.

In damage and size? no. The Intervention and Barret .50 cal both weight close to 30 pounds with their scopes (maybe even more for the Barret). There's no way you would have the kind of mobility that you see in CoD. Also a round from either one of the snipers would more than likely kill you. The .50 cal for sure, I mean you can mean to tell me that hitting somebody in the stomach with the .50 cal would only injure them. (without stopping power you can get hit markers below the chest). I completely understand they've modify them to make the game more playable, again I'm not arguing for realism here. I believe there are a few weapons that have clip sizes that aren't applicable to their respective guns, I forget which ones in specific though.

Nothing wrong with the MP40 in WaW

Dude, the thing has the stopping power of a modern day assault rifle. You mean to tell me that an SMG with a 9mm round should have that kind of stopping power? Even the people who love WaW will tell you the MP40 is OP. You shouldn't be able to kill somebody across map with an SMG.

If balance is more important then why play a series thats never been about balance?

Because they have made a game that is damn close to being balanced. So why not tweak it a bit, to make it almost perfectly balanced?

I think more or less we both agree on most things. But bottom line is, you don't want to see the models patched, and I can't understand why.

 

[diduknowthat]

If thats not your preference, then thats not your preference, but thats like buying Rainbow Six if you don't like tactical games then complaining about how the game was made.

Just because realism in a game isn't something you prefer doesn't make it wrong.

Of course not, which is why it's not a simulator or a tactical shooter, but it's also not like Halo or Unreal Tournament. Like I said, it's supposed to be a realistic to an extent and the realism of the 1887 fits in with the other realistic aspects of the game.

But the fact is that only higher level people have access to this gun. All other higher level guns aren't this over powered.

 

[Motorcharge]

There most certainly is. How about a gun that is a one hit kill at any range with perfect accuracy? Would that not be too effective?

When that gun exists and they decide to stick it in a game, let me know.

Well said, and I agree. I never said that they should make the game more realistic. Just balanced.

No it doesn't. If every weapon is the same then whats the point?

In damage and size? no. The Intervention and Barret .50 cal both weight close to 30 pounds with their scopes (maybe even more for the Barret). There's no way you would have the kind of mobility that you see in CoD. Also a round from either one of the snipers would more than likely kill you. The .50 cal for sure, I mean you can mean to tell me that hitting somebody in the stomach with the .50 cal would only injure them. (without stopping power you can get hit markers below the chest). I completely understand they've modify them to make the game more playable, again I'm not arguing for realism here. I believe there are a few weapons that have clip sizes that aren't applicable to their respective guns, I forget which ones in specific though.

I said in damage relative to one another. Yes, it would absolutely kill you, and thats one of the many reasons I only play hardcore, where it does kill in one hit the vast majority of the time.

Like I said before, and you agreed, they tone down the negative effects for playability. As for the clips, it's a non issue really. Just because clip sizes don't match the factory clips really doesn't mean anything. Theres all kinds of aftermarket clips that hold more ammo.

Dude, the thing has the stopping power of a modern day assault rifle. You mean to tell me that an SMG with a 9mm round should have that kind of stopping power? Even the people who love WaW will tell you the MP40 is OP. You shouldn't be able to kill somebody across map with an SMG.

Shoot someone with one and see if they keep going.
Quite honestly I can't really say for WaW, I didn't play it all that much because it sucked as much as 3 did. I never saw anything ridiculous with the mp40 when I played though.

Because they have made a game that is damn close to being balanced. So why not tweak it a bit, to make it almost perfectly balanced?

Why tone down the realism because a few people are annoyed at getting killed with a realistic weapon?

I think more or less we both agree on most things. But bottom line is, you don't want to see the models patched, and I can't understand why.

Because theres no reason to. It's a powerful, realistic weapon that can't be used until a high level.

 

[Motorcharge]

But the fact is that only higher level people have access to this gun. All other higher level guns aren't this over powered.

And the other high level guns are as effective in game as in real life, so whats your point?

 

[Shane]

They need to be balanced out...way too powerfull imo,and still they need to fix the claymore issue!

 

[diduknowthat]

And the other high level guns are as effective in game as in real life, so whats your point?

Because higher level shouldn't = better gun. You can see that in all other successful unlocking games. Take a look at BF2, higher level guns are different, but not necessarily better than the starter guns. If you offer better guns to people who plays more, you'll just ruin the experience for starters and kill the fan base for the game.

They need to be balanced out...way too powerfull imo,and still they need to fix the claymore issue!

what's the claymore issue?