(14 Jan 12, 09:01PM)Roflcopter Wrote: I find it amazing how this community drags its feet at positive changes that make things more skilled.Maybe because some people don't like your supposedly positive changes?
(14 Jan 12, 09:01PM)Roflcopter Wrote: The spread square covers about 3 players bodiesAnd I thought we already came to the conclusion that this is nonsense? If you handle the AR like it's supposed to be handled, i.e. not spray an entire mag in one go, you get far less spread. If you can't handle burst firing, the AR is simply not a weapon for you - you might want to try the sniper or (not kidding) the carbine instead.
(14 Jan 12, 09:01PM)Roflcopter Wrote: Tell me any competitive game with such appalling statistics.I'm not sure what qualifies as a "competitive game", but if you view spread as relative to the usual engagement distances, I assume most games I've played yet would qualify. ET-series, for example. Or ArmA, if you just hold down the trigger (although I'll admit that game is just not comparable with AC). Or Sauerbraten (esp. chaingun), to stay within the cube universe.
This is fairly pointless anyway. Even if we assume for a moment that winning is the most important aspect of a game, there are literally hundreds of factors involved in winning a match, and I'd say most of them are more important than weapon spread.
And either way, I'm not the gameplay guy in the team, so I'm outta here.