- The new skin uses CSS drop-boxes that Internet Explorer 6 or below don't recognize. Please upgrade or temporarily change browsers to view this site.
- Also note that the EncyClanPedia is always on the look-out for volunteers to help our site grow. If interested, feel free to contact Dairuka.
Talk:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare/Weapon Explanation
From EncyClanPedia
Contents |
81.153.194.10 - 0 Point(s)
copyed
81.153.194.10 - 0 Point(s)
copyed
12.33.239.250 - 2 Point(s)
yaw is lateral, pitch is up/down. stopping power is basedmg * (1 + (basedmg/100)) 81.104.114.177 - 3 Point(s) sorry dude i rated 3..alot of this is inacurate
Interesting stuff. Thanks for trying to explain all those values as I have already struggled with some of these before I have discovered this awesome wiki project. However, I got a question on actual vs visual recoil. It seems that within a weapon category (SMGs, LMPG, etc.) the actual recoil is always the same while the visual recoil differs from weapon to weapon. Now, what does that actually mean? Does this mean that for example assault rifles all have the same relatively small recoil, but it just looks like some of them have more recoil than others? Somehow this sounds bizarre. Maybe somebody can shed some light on this.
--[CrY] FoX 04:57, 6 February 2008 (PST)
Thats exactly what it means.
The game client shows the gun having very little recoil, meaning the recoil isn't adding much to the deviation of the bullets.
However, on your screen, if the visual recoil is high, you can expect it to jump around in your face, even if it isn't deviating much in game.
--Dairuka 05:14, 6 February 2008 (PST)
Thanks for the quick answer, Dairuka! Quintessentially, knowing about this fact it might not be that difficult to adapt to the visual recoil. Which would mean that even a gun with relatively high visual recoil like the AK47 can be used quite accurately if you know about how the game actually handles recoil. That would most certainly explain why a guy last night was surprisingly accurate with the AK47 (and I don't think he was cheating).
--[CrY] FoX 06:38, 6 February 2008 (PST)
I check in every now and then to see how the site is going. I just happened to stumble across your question at the right time.
Guess you're a lucky person. :)
--Dairuka 08:18, 6 February 2008 (PST)
Wish I could thank the guy making all these corrections
But the bugger is anonymous.
Thanks for all your help if you see this.
--Dairuka 05:37, 8 May 2008 (PDT)