Zhohar

I for one would thoroughly enjoy knowing why this is "obvious." Care to elaborate?

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

Morkrash

Thoroughly? Alright.

First off, the shotgun is virtually useless when you're out in the open. Playing on large maps like Verdun (conquest) or Suez Canal, you're clearly opting to become fodder for either vehicles or people with medium to long-range engagement capabilities. Even if you're able to "stunlock" vehicles with EMP grenades, realistically, there is no escape. If you disagree with this point, then I won't even bother arguing further.

So, where does this leave us? Most built-up areas where the best chances of CQC engagement can be encountered are around flags/silos. In this case, you are either attacking or defending the points. If you are assaulting, chances are you will need often need to engage opponents at variable distances before reaching the actual objective - something at which the shotgun fails. The same scenario applies to defenders; if you see an opponent approaching you or firing from afar, you will have no choice but to fall back if you're using the shotgun (instead of directly engaging them). Finally, if you find it necessary to move to a new location across the map, since points are inevitably taken quite often by the enemy, what percentage of that time are you going to be able to protect yourself against most threats outside of your range? Sure, you may have your own squad, but one less player with a weapon as versatile as some MGs can drag it down.

I want you to try the following exercise: rack your brain for all the the truly optimal areas on "open" maps for the shotgun. In how many of these does a shotgun supercede the power of an assault rifle or even an LMG/HMG? The reason why I said that the shotgun shouldn't be used on large, open maps is because of its lack of versatility. How can a shotgun stand up to the range versatility of a Baur, for instance? Even at reasonably close distances, machine guns often tear up shotgun users (have you noticed the monstrous damage of a well-aimed Baur?), so this really leaves shotgun users at an advantage only in extremely CQC situations. On open maps, what is the likelihood of this happening when cover is minimal and visibility is high?

Maybe that's not a sufficiently "thorough" explanation for you, but if you disagree with what I'm saying, please feel free to state your reasons why shotguns are not virtually useless on open maps.

Oh, one last thing: judging from your stats, I can tell that you've had considerable experience with the shotgun. Due to this, I was originally inclined to accept your stance to a greater degree. However, upon closer inspection of your maps played, I noticed that nearly 80% of your games played have occurred on "city maps", which contain many CQC areas (according to the website 2142-stats). In light of this, I think I can safely assume that you don't use the shotgun very often in open maps (and for good reason!:P). Even if you did, this is overshadowed by the fact that your use of the Voss more than doubles that of the shotgun. What I mean by pointing this out is that the likelihood of you using a shotgun instead of a Voss in open maps is (presumably) further decreased due to this habitual ratio. While my use of the shotgun is much lower, I do have an alt. whom I used before unlocking the entire support tree on Morkrash, which gives me a total of over 1000 kills with the shotgun. This is nothing compared to your stats, but I think it at least gives me a little footing.

In short, the shotgun is pretty situational, as I think even you can admit. Most of these favourable situations are not found in open maps.

EDIT: Some of you may hate me for referring to players' stats while making an argument, but I personally believe that they often support the validity of a claim. As such, mine may not necessarily be very strong, so I eagerly await Zhohar's response.

Zhohar

Aah, so you're saying that a machine gun -- Bianchi, Shuko, and Ganz -- would be more versatile and hence, logically, more effective on open maps?

Oh, and while we're setting matters straight --

I haven't posted a stance yet, dear sir. I have posted a question, which, my fair and honourable sir, is a request for information that, itself, contains no position or stance on the information in question (pardon the pun). Thank you for your understanding

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

Morkrash

Fine, if you want to get into semantics, the only player-carried "machine guns" in 2142 are the Bianchi, Shuko and Ganz. My post mainly dealt with the assault class machine guns (sorry, "assault rifles"). Why? One really shouldn't have to make a decision between the support machine guns and the shotgun - everyone knows that the assault rifles are vastly superior to both LMGs and HMGs belonging to the support class (yes, another generalization, but one I think many would agree with) in almost every way. True, as I said in my earlier post, the equipment is just as important as the weapon. However, this question most likely deals with killing potential.

Machine guns and shotguns are two very different types of beasts. Shotguns are exclusively for CQC while the machine guns are for ranged engagement since their deployment time, cooldown, poor deviation while moving, etc. greatly hamper their effectiveness in the same situation as shotguns. However, this is not as much the case with assault rifles - they are so versatile that they can pretty often go toe-to-toe with shotgun users at varying distances.

I'm sorry for distorting your original question, Adaxa. The differences between the support machine guns and shotguns are so great that I assumed that you instead meant assault rifles, which is a more pressing question to answer (IMO). Oh, and Zhohar, why do your comments have to come through as so derisive and condescending? It's disturbing. I don't care if you deny it - anyone with half a brain can see it. At least I tried to have a discussion without any personal insult involved - I merely wanted to criticise your points. What points, you ask? Your comment "I for one would thoroughly enjoy knowing why this is "obvious." Care to elaborate?" is so saturated with resistance to my statements that it would be foolish not to treat it as such a stance. You are essentially challenging me to support my claim, so, you claiming to have presented no preconceived opinion on your part (and, instead, a mere "question") is ridiculous, whether you openly display it or not. Geez, it's about as subtle as your attempt to mock me in the entirety of your last post.

Zhohar

What you read into my post is entirely your own business mate. I asked you a question and you still haven't answered it -- you've admitted as much yourself. As far as I understand it, you addressed the question "Assault Rifles vs Clark Shotgun."
I'd like you to get back on topic and address the question that is this thread's focus: Support HMGs (Ganz/Bianchi/Shukuo) vs Clark Shotgun.

So I pose my question again: why do you believe the support HMGs are a better choice over the Clark on large and open maps?

__________________
Pfft, how can you call it suicidal if we lived through it?

Uranium - 235

Bullets go far.



EDIT: And... my supporting membership is back. That was weird.

Adaxa

Yeah, after playing with the Clark and the HMG, I have found that, while the Clark is a good gun, it is a situational weapon, and should be used only when you know that your squad is going to be using CQC in the buildings of belgrade (central camp), or your squad is going to be moving around alot.

However, I must say I prefer the Ganz overall, and I do take a hint from waffle, and treat it like a big assault rifle. In fact, I think I do better playing with it, due to its mobility and fire power. The sheer stream of bullets must look like a wall of metal with slots in it.

__________________
|TG-Irr|Adaxa

Active in: BF2142

"Jesus saves! He passes to Moses... SCOOORE!"

Lunien

It depends on your playstyle - if you're good at closing the distance between people or getting the jump on them (such as via the IDS), go ahead and use the clark. Well if you get to Brig. Gen, you probably have lots of weapons at your disposal - pick the one that suits what you're gonna be doing. If you're gonna be in CQC offense or defense, by all means pick the clark. If you're gonna be in a cramped building, pick the clark. If you're gonna be in an area with lots of obstacles and corners to hide around, go ahead and pick the clark. Otherwise, go with the ganz, its a great weapon too. With the IDS around you really can't go wrong - as long as you stay in an area where enemies in the IDS range can shoot you you're fine clarking.

LordKelvin

I would definitely bring the Ganz over the shotgun on large, open maps for the following reason. With the shotgun, I can pwn people in the face at close range. At medium-long range, I am more likely to be struck by lightning than to hit them. With the Ganz, I can riddle the enemy full of lead at any range I can see, and beyond, as well as a guy right in front of me.

Therefore, the HMG/LMGs is/are more effective, and the gun(s) to bring with you.

__________________







Why MTG has lost any sense of balance:
Lotus Cobra