Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Another thing I see a lot of people don't think about when too busy blaming "Aim better"
slow handling also means slower recenter when you flinch from taking damage.
basic marksman, you might have a chance recentering and getting that headshot. counter sniper? Even if crosshair sights were not infamously misaligned, you might as well dive to the side and shoot in 3rd person falling through the air or scope as soon as you land.
This is also why the support machineguns can be shockingly trash in close combat. Every sucker saying "You just hate realistic gameplay!" is someone not accounting for the fact heavy weapons handle like they are made of Styrofoam, when it comes to swaying it sideways away from your enemy as you take damage.
Sometimes it gets so bad that I literally leap down off of cliffs to land a headshot kill as I fall on devastators, when a high ground position means wrestling with flinching as they shoot up at me.
They're not even fully automatic rifles, so it would make sense to give them heavier bullets that can penetrate medium armor. I wish they did this instead of giving us plinkers.
It deals 10 more damage than the base Diligence for less mag size and worse handling with the same light armour pen.
There was a rumour that the armour penetration was wrong and it was actually medium AP but this is false. The DCS is just a worse Diligence.