Opinions on M203 and GP-30.

[straywolf]

Exactly. And basically "firing from the hip" while bunny hopping...

[straywolf]

That's why they survive...
They BUNNY HOP out of the splash damage, just like they would when you fire your rifle at them. This **** has got to go!

[straywolf]

Because of your body armor....

[Legli]

I play assault a lot and what you all say about it detonating and not killing the user - I would love that to be me. Heck I fire this thing 100+ metres and I'm sure to get the ensuing blur effects

I dont jump when using it and its mainly for light vehicles or blackhawks when I do use it. Or a tank if I know I have no chance of remaining hidden. But I do hate it when people jump and launch it killing you but taking no damage, especially since I seem to take it as if I'd just nuked the map when I use it, while the enemy a couple of centimetres away from the explosion walks on unharmed.

[Chop_Suey35]

ive gotten pretty skilled with it and ive killed people from great ranges. therefore many people call me a noob, but it honestly takes skill to lob them a long range.

im with him on that one like seriously its really not a noob cannon well maybe at like 2 feet but that usually ends up occuring because i have it out and some guy pops out of no where, although may be just personaly bias but i really think it's quite opposite, that it takes a lot of skill to plant the nades were we want them with the 203 the croshairs at longer ranges are bascally worthless and plus when a person is moving u have to estimate by leading him just like a sniper has to do and thats really not a noob thing haven't seen many noobs who can do it, and if u could i wouldn't call u a noob

[predatorMC]

When I first got BF2 I was using the grenade launchers more than the rifle, as I play assault class. It is really easy to get kills after a bit of practice, i didnt even use the sights or crosshair anymore.

Now I have the G3 and no grenade launcher, and I am getting a bit annoyed at all these people doing what I used to do :P

Personally I think that It should have a range before sploding, but not as long as AA. I also think that it is a bit unfair that Assault loses this asset once you unlock the new weapon, its the only class that loses one of its weapons for something that almost all the other classes have anyway (grenades).

I still think that the assault class should have some boosts rather than nerfs, i mean, you dont have a teamscore asset (like medic, supp, eng) you have low stamina, one pansy magicians smoke grenade. The unlock is good, but loses the grenade launcher, even though the HK79 exists.

:s

[Thelron]

if you did this in SOF2 with the 203 you would be dead as well.

Well, pity we're not playing SOF2 then, sounds like the way the weapons were modelled and balanced is more to your liking over there.

Like I keep saying when these threads arise, take a look at what is REALLY being *****ed about- the M203. Almost nobody complains about the GP30 because it isn't used nearly as often in close quarters even though it is in game-terms the exact same weapon.

Let's think about the situation a little more, using that as the starting point. Launcher A on Weapon A is the same as Launcher B on Weapon B. n00b JoeSchmoe has about even chanecs to be using Weapon A as he has to be using Weapon B. Yet, when he is carrying Weapon A the likelyhood that he uses Launcher A in close-quarters is significantly higher than the chances that he uses Launcher B when carrying Weapon B. So, we have equal launchers and it they are available for use by the same 'n00b' player, the only difference there is to explain why one is used so often is that there is something different about the Weapons. Something different enough that there is seemingly overwhelming use of the Launcher as opposed to the Weapon concerned, especially by players who the elitists deem to be of lesser skill.

This leads to the fairly obvoius conclusion that the root of the problem lies not in the fact that the grenade launcher is such an easy kill at close range, but that the alternative gun is either significantly less deadly or significantly harder to use at close range than its other-army counterparts. Personally I consider the M16 to be sufficiently deadly given a very skilled user at close range, but that it requires a very large skill gap over the AK series to gain a functionally even footing with an opposing soldier. The answer? Whip out your M203 and hopefully plant a grenade at his feet before he can pull the trigger on the AK. Much easier than going to iron sights at close-quarters with your M16 to try for the headshots you need to beat an AK user.

On the other side of the coin, you can punch through an assault's body armor in about 4 AK hits. Two strikes to the head kill, and you have an automatic mode that lets you pump out the bullets fast enough the other guy will have a hard time taking the aim required to get you in the head (it seems to take at least 3 full bursts to the body to kill an assault, you won't have time for that in most fights). Since you can already kill an enemy very quickly and easily with the rifle portion of your package, and should be able to kill at least two before reloading, there is little reason to switch to a single-shot weapon that leaves you reloading between kills.

So, whining about people using the grenade launchers up close and trying to say they're cheesy misses the point entirely. If you want activation ranges on 'em, hey that's great. Just make sure that you not only give them a similarily realistic blast radius, but that you also address the root of your problem, that the M16 is a much harder to use weapon up close. Otherwise, you will as has been said simply see people deciding to risk the suicide by firing at something overly close, OR you'll see even more USMC specops guys, because the assault kit will become unreasonably difficult for many people to use.

[lIq]

Well, pity we're not playing SOF2 then, sounds like the way the weapons were modelled and balanced is more to your liking over there.

I was just making a reference to another games use of m203 which is MUCH MORE realistic, no need to make an ass out of yourself

[dBs]

I was just making a reference to another games use of m203 which is MUCH MORE realistic, no need to make an ass out of yourself

Yes, since BF2 is the epitome of realism =P I think everyone understands that BF2 has sacrificed realism for fun on many counts.

[imported_Bossman]

It needs to be fixed. Watch any top level match on TSN and you see nothing else than people bunnyhopping with their grenade launchers.

[Meritt]

Just to clarify people trying to make real-world comparisons..

Maximum range: 400 m
Maximum effective range:
..Area target: 350 m
..Point target: 150 m
Minimum safe range (HE)
..Training: 165 m
..Combat: 31 m
Arming range: 14-27 m
Rate of fire: 5-7 rpm

That's from some of my Marine stuff when we were learning to use them...

[Retribution.]

i think they should make it an unlock instead of the G3.

a very good idea!
this would work very well.

[JarEme]

The m203 is what makes Battlefield "Battlefield" and not some crappy army simulation that no one wants to play. It doesn't need to be changed. If you give it a minimum distance, it'll be useless since close range is the only range at which you can even hit people with it consistently.

[FantasticDamage]

<--- newb launching, bunny hopping f*ggot.

Sorry, but I used to play Tribes. I can't stay glued to the ground.

[Retribution.]

<--- newb launching, bunny hopping f*ggot.

Sorry, but I used to play Tribes. I can't stay glued to the ground.

bunny hoppers and an M203 grenade
by god thas the funniest thing i have ever seen in a game when someone try's to bunny hop away from my launcher as it only makes the body go higher in the air when they die :laugh:

jump on.