Worst. Weapon. Ever.
- Thread starter Mysterious Stranger
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When equipped creature deals combat damage to an opponent, destroy all permanents but Worldslayer, useless weapon indeed.Ganath said:
Really? It is accurate enough to reliably hit targets at 100m (330ft) and beyond. And combat distances rarely exceded that.AlotFirst said:
Danial said:
Okysho said:
(Does this count as a hat trick?)Ordinaryundone said:
Some people seem to be criticizing my opinion, and hey, I understand their point, I mean no offense to anybody who actually likes this weapon.
I will say that the Gunblade looks dumb... and seems needlessly complicated gameplay-wise. Plus, why call it a Gunblade if it doesn't really function as a gun?
That's all I'm saying, people...
The Fan O' War in TF2. It literally is the weakest weapon in the game, a critical hit does a whopping... 13 HP! All it does is inflict minicrits on one person that you hit it with.
The remote rocket is worse- pathetic damage and you´ll frequently miss targets because it turns so slowlDominic Burchnall said:
12 gauge Beanbag shells had the same effect- but it is a bit odd how normal shotshells barely affect Deathclaws but beanbags make them tumble onto the ground.TheHappySquid said:
It's not supposed to do damage and be used to kill someone, so I wouldn't say it's the worst weapon in the game.TheYellowCellPhone said:
On Hit: One target at a time is marked for death, causing all damage taken to be mini-crits
I can see some uses for that tbh. Slap a heavy, then force-of-nature their asses. That'd pretty much kill them.
Outside of games: the SA80 rifle series
Oh god it is awful, a black mark on the British establishment. The only positive to come from it is the discipline and loyalty of British troops that tolerate such a a diabolical device, and a shame on the officers who too so long to even get the weapon fixed:
Contras:
-Magzine catch has awful ergonomics and when used with kit the magazine keeps getting accidentally released, the solution is only a flap over magazine catch
-it is impossible to change magazine while still aiming at target.
-unreasonably difficult to reload from prone (unlike even other bullpup rifles)
-Terrible controls, from the safety in inadequate position and the fire-select switch is placed way back and for some oppressive reason the fire-selector switch is made ridiculously stiff so that you have to lever your whole arm just to change firing mode. The result: everyone always keeps it in full auto mode
-The bullpup layout makes the weapon much harder to control on full auto without the weight out front, the muzzle is also much closer to be more deafening.
-L86 or SA80 LSW "Light Support Weapon" is neither light, supporting nor even a weapon it jams so often. It was very overweight for its capability. It has a split group, first shot goes one trajectory, full auto goes another. This is unforgivable for a support weapon. Then it overheats so quickly (light fixed barrel) that it pretty much as to be fed semi-auto only and the ammunition capacity is smaller and too slow to reload... squadies all agree the Bren gun (of 1935) is better in almost every way.
-non-adjustable shoulder-length/grip length
-no vertical fore-grip option
-absolutely no way to eject to the left for left side shooters, when other contemporary bullpups could.
-The entire system is monumentally expensive, 13x the cost of buying M16 rifles or other bullpup systems. Slap SUSAT scope on that and it would have been as good.
-other commonwealth nations like Australia and New Zealand had no shame in using foreign design. Even the Lee Enfield and SLR were foreign rifle designs (though modified).
-still reliability problems even after the A2 upgrade
-extremely limited modularity
-so bad that it has had practically no export sales.
Semi-Pros:
-not inaccurate, but not supper accurate either. All the accuracy claims are unfair as it compared the SLR with iron sights against the SA80 with the SUSAT scope... a 4x magnification scope. The SLR in fact had a similar scope, the SUIT sight but the test was so corrupt it excluded that comparison
-Bullpup means it is slightly easier to aim. A long barreled weapon is like a weight on the end of a lever, it is harder to keep the sights perfectly still on target. But offset by how full-auto is always employed
-Bullpup means it is somewhat easier to use in trenches
-it is possible to disengage the safety with the trigger finger, but not re-engage it without moving your left hand.
-trigger isn't as bad as other bullpup rifles, still very stiff.
Really, the sooner this weapon is trashed the better.
It has been an overly wrought, expensive mess.
in 1988 there was the option to buy M16 rifles at $420 a piece. They turned that down.
Each weapon now costs $17'000 a piece and is a massive liability.
Oh god it is awful, a black mark on the British establishment. The only positive to come from it is the discipline and loyalty of British troops that tolerate such a a diabolical device, and a shame on the officers who too so long to even get the weapon fixed:
Contras:
-Magzine catch has awful ergonomics and when used with kit the magazine keeps getting accidentally released, the solution is only a flap over magazine catch
-it is impossible to change magazine while still aiming at target.
-unreasonably difficult to reload from prone (unlike even other bullpup rifles)
-Terrible controls, from the safety in inadequate position and the fire-select switch is placed way back and for some oppressive reason the fire-selector switch is made ridiculously stiff so that you have to lever your whole arm just to change firing mode. The result: everyone always keeps it in full auto mode
-The bullpup layout makes the weapon much harder to control on full auto without the weight out front, the muzzle is also much closer to be more deafening.
-L86 or SA80 LSW "Light Support Weapon" is neither light, supporting nor even a weapon it jams so often. It was very overweight for its capability. It has a split group, first shot goes one trajectory, full auto goes another. This is unforgivable for a support weapon. Then it overheats so quickly (light fixed barrel) that it pretty much as to be fed semi-auto only and the ammunition capacity is smaller and too slow to reload... squadies all agree the Bren gun (of 1935) is better in almost every way.
-non-adjustable shoulder-length/grip length
-no vertical fore-grip option
-absolutely no way to eject to the left for left side shooters, when other contemporary bullpups could.
-The entire system is monumentally expensive, 13x the cost of buying M16 rifles or other bullpup systems. Slap SUSAT scope on that and it would have been as good.
-other commonwealth nations like Australia and New Zealand had no shame in using foreign design. Even the Lee Enfield and SLR were foreign rifle designs (though modified).
-still reliability problems even after the A2 upgrade
-extremely limited modularity
-so bad that it has had practically no export sales.
Semi-Pros:
-not inaccurate, but not supper accurate either. All the accuracy claims are unfair as it compared the SLR with iron sights against the SA80 with the SUSAT scope... a 4x magnification scope. The SLR in fact had a similar scope, the SUIT sight but the test was so corrupt it excluded that comparison
-Bullpup means it is slightly easier to aim. A long barreled weapon is like a weight on the end of a lever, it is harder to keep the sights perfectly still on target. But offset by how full-auto is always employed
-Bullpup means it is somewhat easier to use in trenches
-it is possible to disengage the safety with the trigger finger, but not re-engage it without moving your left hand.
-trigger isn't as bad as other bullpup rifles, still very stiff.
Really, the sooner this weapon is trashed the better.
It has been an overly wrought, expensive mess.
in 1988 there was the option to buy M16 rifles at $420 a piece. They turned that down.
Each weapon now costs $17'000 a piece and is a massive liability.
It can kill in one body shot, but you have to keep it aimed at the enemy because the entire beam isn´t fired instantly.chrono16 said:
I agree with this. They really should have made something akin to the Fusion Swords as his ultimate weapon, so that the game and Advent Children had yet another reference to eachother.Dragon_of_red said:
That, and we still don't know where those god damn swords came from.
. And the rock in mount and blade ..ooh the horror .Wow, there are people who STILL don't understand how Squalls gunblade works? It's a vibroblade, you pull the trigger as you hit the enemy, it fires a blank, the vibration increases cutting power. What's so hard to grasp about it? If you want a real gunblade, see Lightning.
As for worst, the stick from Ico. My god how awful was that?
As for worst, the stick from Ico. My god how awful was that?
I thought they became rather reliable after H&K fixed them? At least that's what the officials say.Treblaine said:
OT: Daikatana had some really shitty guns, plenty of which were either totally useless or much more likely to kill you rather than your enemy.
The titular weapon was pretty cool though, at least to my 12-year-old self.
I'd say don't think about how it works; just know you can stab and shoot somebody at the same time.CrazyGirl17 said: