Poll: Accuracy...Do you care?

[Spirultima]

my favorite gun from call of duty (pre modern) was the lee enfeild.
I loved its accuracy and its large mag size (larger than the K98 anyway) Which ment you got some real nice shots.

Aaaaaaacutally the Lee Enfield was an unreliable rifle. But because its in a game where no gun jams or breaks, it SEEMS good, because american/allies devs. want you to think that.

no gun jams in games man... And if they wanted you to think the allies guns were awesome why does the thompson suck? The lee enfeild was not unreliable, it was heavy as hell but not unreliable. But lets not nit pick on an aspect that seriously no one but you or I care at all for.

Well as praised as it is, its a rather pathetic attempt to get in to the Sniper Rifles, the German forces perfected it in WWI, and in WWII, they only got better (Just to let you know the Kar98 and the Kar98k are my favourite weapons in WWII, so expect me to nit pick with those sorts of weapons. I was going MAD over how in CoD: WaW they had the Kar98"k" though it lacked the scope OR the fact you have to load it bullet by bullet.)

Oh and the Thompson sucked more balls then Elton John in a gangbang.

 

[IncindiaryPickle]

Playing scout in TF2 I have to be very accurate and track targets quickly, but just 'cus I care it doesn't mean that it happens.

I'm bad with the scout for just this reason, I can't get targets fast enough. That's why I'm a demoman!
OT: it depends what game, but I'm usually for accuracy.

 

[TheSeventhLoneWolf]

It's fun to kill in melee, Especially in tf2 as a medic. The syringegun is tremendously bad if you can't predection-shoot.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

Depends on my situation. Give me an M40, and I'll be precise. Give me two Mini-Uzis, and I'll kill through sheer numbers.

 

[Spirultima]

Depends on my situation. Give me an M40, and I'll be precise. Give me two Mini-Uzis, and I'll kill through sheer numbers.

See, your my target, all I need is one shot and yo is a dead fool. Yet you need luck to get that one bullet to me (by one to me, I mean the quadrillion you fired, but the one that got through) and as The Sniper from TF2 said "Skill always beats luck"

 

[[Gavo]]

You don't need to be pinpoint accurate to hit someone with a rocket.

 

[WolfThomas]

I prefer if I have the option to do both in a game, liked in Rainbow 6 Vegas 2, I liked using the M468 on single fire and auto depending on the situation,

 

[Vergast]

my favorite gun from call of duty (pre modern) was the lee enfeild.
I loved its accuracy and its large mag size (larger than the K98 anyway) Which ment you got some real nice shots.

Aaaaaaacutally the Lee Enfield was an unreliable rifle. But because its in a game where no gun jams or breaks, it SEEMS good, because american/allies devs. want you to think that.

no gun jams in games man... And if they wanted you to think the allies guns were awesome why does the thompson suck? The lee enfeild was not unreliable, it was heavy as hell but not unreliable. But lets not nit pick on an aspect that seriously no one but you or I care at all for.

Well as praised as it is, its a rather pathetic attempt to get in to the Sniper Rifles, the German forces perfected it in WWI, and in WWII, they only got better (Just to let you know the Kar98 and the Kar98k are my favourite weapons in WWII, so expect me to nit pick with those sorts of weapons. I was going MAD over how in CoD: WaW they had the Kar98"k" though it lacked the scope OR the fact you have to load it bullet by bullet.)

Oh and the Thompson sucked more balls then Elton John in a gangbang.

Oh i whole haertly agree that the kar98 was a good sniping weapon, mausers weapons were the bases of the springfeild rifle of the americans. And you are right i supose, as a sniping weapon the german rifle was deadly effective, what with its inspired design. But where it lacks is its magazine. The lee enfeild surpass it there. The 10 rounds allong with the british infantrys mans training (ah i must include canadian and indian infantry men also) allowed the weapon to be fired in a much more concentrated quick and devistaing volly. Im sure youve heard of the occasions that german troops belived to be under machine gun fire when in fact it was a section of british firing devistaing quickly. So i conceed to you, the german rifle was the better for sniping (the leason drilled into the germans i belive starting from the american reveluison was that 'snipping' rifles were better due to the numerous occasions yankie sharp shots killed enemy officers) But if i were on the battlefeild of Yepes or the Arden forest i would have to choose the lee enfeild. In my mind the larger magazine, sturdy build and accuracy makes it the better weapon for ww2 shooters.
I was noting, its my favorite.

 

[Spirultima]

Oh i whole haertly agree that the kar98 was a good sniping weapon, mausers weapons were the bases of the springfeild rifle of the americans. And you are right i supose, as a sniping weapon the german rifle was deadly effective, what with its inspired design. But where it lacks is its magazine. The lee enfeild surpass it there. The 10 rounds allong with the british infantrys mans training (ah i must include canadian and indian infantry men also) allowed the weapon to be fired in a much more concentrated quick and devistaing volly. Im sure youve heard of the occasions that german troops belived to be under machine gun fire when in fact it was a section of british firing devistaing quickly. So i conceed to you, the german rifle was the better for sniping (the leason drilled into the germans i belive starting from the american reveluison was that 'snipping' rifles were better due to the numerous occasions yankie sharp shots killed enemy officers) But if i were on the battlefeild of Yepes or the Arden forest i would have to choose the lee enfeild. In my mind the larger magazine, sturdy build and accuracy makes it the better weapon for ww2 shooters.
I was noting, its my favorite.

What your saying is capacity is where the Kar98k fails, sure 5 shots isn't a lot if your combat sniping (Sniping in the middle of a battle) rather then tactical sniping (Waiting, basically) but the Axis were trained hard, very hard and so were trained to know when to fire and when not to, and when they did, it wasn't rushed.

We British make excellent things, no doubt, but Germany also excels and in one way they were superior was there snipers, better trained and better armed, to put nicely the Allies only just got into the sniping business were as the Axis were already adept at it.

I care little for the stories of war, unless ingenious or brilliant (for example The Battle of Hei Fei with Zhang Liao) if a unit believed to be under machinegun fire, it was a quick presumption, if your life is at stake, most people don't consider the firing rate of which they are under attack.

And "Sharpshooters" were around nearly as long as the first gunpowder, lead ball firing rifle was around. Sharpshooter implys someone who is accurate at a distance, the americans were not the originators of "sharpshooting".

I don't love something simply because im attached to it, I'll love something when I decide its superior or has the capacity of being something worth my attention (as snobby that sounds) The Kar98k was reliable, accurate, powerful (in terms of being able to pass through something such as a tree or light cover) considerably easier to take apart, clean and put back together, and could take quite some heavy weather conditions and still work at optimum capacity and this isn't even taking into consideration the men behind the weapon, the finger needs to pull the trigger and knowing when is key and so, why German snipers were superior to the Allied snipers (Not saying all the Allied snipers were a bunch of snotty nosed, pathetic excuses for human beings, just they weren't as experienced whether it be the experience of the training course or of the person behind the trigger)

(Also off topic, not being a grammar Nazi (no pun intended) or anything, but would you mind checking your spelling such when posting? Thanks)

 

[silentsentinel]

If the target dies in the end, I am happy. That being said, I have to be accurate if I'm facing multiple opponents in a FPS.

 

[Skeleon]

I prefer accurate weapons, but not sniper rifles - too slow for my taste.
However, using, say, a Steyr Aug in a game with short bursts can be very accurate as well.

And "Sharpshooters" were around nearly as long as the first gunpowder, lead ball firing rifle was around. Sharpshooter implys someone who is accurate at a distance, the americans were not the originators of "sharpshooting".

Also, excellent crossbowmen or archers were also considered sharpshooters, so it goes back even further than that.

 

[HaruHearts]

If you can't do it with one bullet don't do it at all! Sean Connery: League of Extrodinary Gentlemen.

Acuracy only matters to me with a sniper but all my weps I go for rate of fire. So Sean Cnnerys advice goes out the window. I generally turn an assault rifle into a sniper because I'd have a higher rate of fire meaning if I miss well I got another shot miliseconds after.

 

[Silver]

I put a scope and laser sights on my pistol. So, yeah.

Also, 99% accuracy with dual silenced uzis. One does not necessarily negate the other, bitches. That was a different game though.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Well, if you have a sword the size of a wookie, you really don't bother with such trivialties.

 

[rapidoud]

I like semi-accurate weapons.

I like a bit of spray to hit all over their body and ab it extra, but some get ridiculously inaccurate so they are more likely to hit the environment than the person if aimed at the person (Although, IRL, if you aim a sniper rifle at someone and shoot, they get hit, while on games such as MW2, well, only call of duty, it can someone bend and go 3 metres sideways, this annoys me because i'm one of the not-many who can shoot as accurately without a crosshair).

 

[Citrus]

Depends on my situation. Give me an M40, and I'll be precise. Give me two Mini-Uzis, and I'll kill through sheer numbers.

See, your my target, all I need is one shot and yo is a dead fool. Yet you need luck to get that one bullet to me (by one to me, I mean the quadrillion you fired, but the one that got through) and as The Sniper from TF2 said "Skill always beats luck"

Wow. Sorry man, but you really need to get over yourself.

Anyway, I use a fully-automatic weapon and still go for accuracy. Believe it or not, just because it's fully automatic doesn't mean you need to hold down the trigger. Firing in bursts is what most people learn to do with them, and it works. It depends on the game, but assault rifles are great for taking people down far away as well as up close.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

As long as the dude dies, I don't really give a damn what percentage of my bullets hit him. I mean yeah, it's BETTER if I hit him, but I don' think conserving ammo is a bigger priority than shooting at your enemy is.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

Depends on how many enemies there are and how close to each other they are. If they are separated, then I prefer accuracy. If they are next to each other, I shoot like crazy so I can get them all at once.

 

[Enzeru92]

I must always hit my target even if I die in the end or else I'll just be pissed >_<

 

[DigitalSushi]

Me, I can't stand missing, so I try and be as accurate as possible.

What about you, do you care or do you spray and pray?

(Anyone with a fully auto weapon may as well say no)

It depends really, if the game is good and the AI is a worthy fighter or if in multiplayer and your opponent is a strategist then accuracy isn't needed, just spray all over the shop and run away!.

Well at least your honest and bloody angry as I am to say it, your tactic works -.-

its quite funny how spazzing out in front of an opponent can un nerve them, like physically spazzing out.

I did it to a guy called "TheForce" at a tourny.