This is the first time I have ever felt the need to blog about issues with a game that is suppose to be one of the best FPS shooters to date.  Everything discussed here is regarding multiplayer grievances that should be taken care of before the game was released and made record sales across the world.  I know the developers really don't give a **** about the players and only care about if they bought a copy of the damn game.  Also I understand that some of the listed complaints will be based on realism issues and that this game is suppose to be more arcade like in play style, but there are some issues that are so obvious that computer programmers seem to be oblivious to "the real world" and never really take into account the "real world" weapon or physics.  All I ask for is that the game does have balance for all players and realistic weapon characteristics aside from the severe lag issues and players being able to cheat by "walking under the map."

I have a solid 8 years in the United States Army as an elite 82nd Airborne Paratrooper who has handled nearly every single weapon in the game, so apart from my American biases towards US/NATO made military weapons (which are the best and that's a fact the rest of the world will just have to deal with.) I have a lot of hands on experience with most of these weapon systems.  Since I can't be an elite soldier for my entire life, it's nice to be able to pretend I'm a soldier from the comforts of my Lazy Boy and still feel MW3 has done justice to the great weapon systems in this game.  I get asked a lot from other gamers around college that have never served nor have ever fired a weapon first hand, if the weapon models are accurate to "real life?"  I astoundingly answer to them, whom themselves are programmers and think that they can replicate the real world in the digital world, that the Call of Duty franchise gets the weapons wrong every single time.

Again I want to say that I understand they are attempting to balance the game to make it more user friendly to a wide audience, but with that said how blindly are these game developers to THE REAL THING?  Do they not gather a large source of military subject matter experts, gather real world weapon performance data (because its all over the web), and finally design the game weapon around this collection of data?  So to start off my list of suggestions to GREATLY improve the game, I would also state that the player model given is equal to a real world tier 3 operative no matter the side whom would normally be able to operate all weapon systems with a high level of proficiency.  Without further a due, lets start listing because you know how programmers are oblivious to the real world love their lists.

- The biggest issue I have found is that why isn't there an equal number of players that use the Light Machine Guns?  Well lets answer this, because although the assault rifles and submachine guns are deadly in real life, in this game they are over balanced and ridiculously insane in their performances.  Don't get me wrong every weapon in here is designed to take life, but some designs are better than others.  There is a reason why the United States Rangers deploy two M249 SAW's (basically the Mk 46 in game) in every 9-12 man squad and that is because ever since WW1 machine guns have been the deadliest weapon system for the infantry squad with the highest suppressing/killing potential than any other personal weapon outside of indirect or support fire weapons.  Modern LMG's are able to fire at very high rates, hold large magazine capacities, and fire some of the most powerful rounds in MW3.  What I would like to see is, lets use the Mk 46 as an example: The standard nylon woodland green box magazine holds 200 rounds (in game only 100) of 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition (400 rounds in the larger green plastic box magazine) with a cyclic rate of fire (full auto for the programmers) from 750 rpm to 1000rpm and a (point) effective range of up to 800 meters and (area) effective range of 1000 meters.  Although this weapon is Belgian/American in design, this weapon system is the workhorse for the US military.  This LMG, although heavy at around 22lbs loaded, is extremely manageable to fire offhand, kneeling, and it really shines when fired prone or supported using the built in bi-pod.  There have been guys in my platoon that when ordered to engage in CQB when after being fired upon, used the Mk46 to sweep an entire room, killing all hostiles inside before the breach team even entered/cleared.  What I am getting at is that the LMG's can be deadly even in CQB, although not as nimble as say an MP5 shooting a 9mm (handgun round), are even more deadly when the ranges are close or far.  This is where the game designers get it wrong, they believe that a big 45 ACP UMP is more deadly at close range (within 50 meters is CQB or handgun range) which it is and dont get me wrong, but when compared to a high powered rifle round there is no comparison.  This is why more infantry soldiers are issued an M4A1 than a HK MP5 because anything greater than 100 meters and the handgun cartridges fail to still be effective.  Even at close range, LMG's designed for this such as the Mk 46 and the highly re-designed M60E4 are even more deadly than a handgun shooting SMG, simple physics not "game developers' balancing." Of course any belt feed LMG will have a slightly increased reload time, but this is in a sense balancing and high capacity magazines (more than just 100 rounds this is modern warfare right?) make up for this.

Please ramp up the deadliness of all the LMG's so they are not the worst guns in the game and at least allow the player whom is willing to give up some mobility for un-rivaled firepower to be somewhat respected in MW3 multiplayer. 

This could be done fairly easily by: increasing the normal and extended magazine capacity, increasing the fire rate of Mk 46 because it needs it to be more realistic, Also when firing the Mk46 with iron sights the weapon is nearly impossible to stay on target and this is simply not true to the weapon, the Mk46 can handle the recoil well because it is heavy and has many buffering springs to aid the shooter as well (Watch some freaking youtube videos if you have never fired this weapon).  Also lastly almost all LMG's have a bi-pod as a standard attachment as well as a grip for more effective shooting so maybe implementing the ability to use a multitude of somewhat flat structures as stable firing platforms (this would be the most difficult because no-one besides Battlefield designers thought of players being able to use different areas of the map for support when shooting.)

     - Why is the M60E4 which fires a 147gr (bigger and heavier bullet that travels only slightly slower) 7.62x51mm round at 3000 fps (feet per second) with a cyclic rate of 650 rpm only have a close damage of 50 when the cheap Chinese piece of **** Type 95 have a damage of 55 close?  Again this LMG is firing a round that is also fired from the RSASS sniper rifle.  It is obvious that MW3 has a bias for Chinese junk because they probably have a billion of them writing code for the game but realistically when has China ever produced anything of quality since their porcelain of the 14th century or firecrackers that never go off, let alone designing and manufacturing a precision assault rifle?  They put lead in the paint of their children's toys for Christ's sake.  The Type 95 fires a very similar round to the 5.56 NATO round but the Republic of China proclaims their 5.8x42mm round is superior even though they can't afford to use brass for the cartridge and have to use painted iron to house the propellant and hold the projectile.  Any dumb redneck such as myself understands that hard iron slamming into steel isn't exactly good for the firearm shooting that garbage.  So please fix this issue here as well.

     -Why does the M60E4 sound like a pop gun when the M60 in Black Ops can be heard from anywhere in the map?  Come on this is what makes an LMG respected is because everyone hits the dirt when these things are fired at them.  Please fix this!

Now onto the Assault Rifles, Why does every one use the ACR 6.8?  Because it has zero recoil, damage is off the charts, and it reloads rather fast.  The ACR 6.8 is in real life an awesome weapon and does fire a 6.8 SPC round that is ballistically superior to the Ak-47's 7.62x39mm, the more modern Ak-74's 5.45x39mm round (speaking of modern warfare why is the Ak-47 in the game and not the now Russian issued Ak-74), and the 5.56x45mm NATO round when it comes to knock down power.  The round is rather fat and standard magazine capacity is 28 not 30 and the round was designed to bridge the gap between the 5.56 NATO and the 7.62 NATO.  I love this weapon but realistically it should have more kick than the other assault rifles (aside from the Mk 14 that shoots 7.62 NATO) and should be more deadly than that junk Type 95 no matter how far away the target is.

What is up with the CM901 being a terrible assault rifle?  It's exactly the same as the M4A1 which is an AR type platform.  Why does it kick any harder when it fires the same round as the M4A1?  I don't get it, if they wanted a different gun than why don't they use one of the many unique modern assault rifles out there such as the FN F2000 which has a blistering fast firing rate?  I for one would have loved to have used one of them around the battlefield of MW3.  All the spent casings come out in in front of the fore-grip and under the barrel and do not get flung to the right hand side into your buddy's face while shooting.

The M16 should have rightly so, slightly better accuracy than the M4 (because of the longer barrel), and slightly more damage because of a little faster muzzle velocity due to the longer barrel.  This was done fairly well in the game already but my point is why is that damn Type 95 more powerful than the M16 and damn close to as powerful as the Mk 14 or M1A1 which also shoots the same round fired from the RSASS sniper rifle and does fire a heavier 168gr boat-tail hollow-point Match round at nearly 2600 fps than the M60's linked 147gr FMJ boat-tail BALL ammo?

Submachine guns in this game are ridiculous at close quarters and rightly should be because of their fast handling, fast aiming, and fast reloading.  With that said why is better for me to grab a P90 add extended mags and rapid fire to use like a LMG than an actual freaking LMG?  Also hey game designers what the F$$k were you thinking because a P90 cannot have an extended magazine without having to completely redesign the whole damn firearm.  Haven't you even looked at your own designed "reloading animation" for the P90?  The magazine fits upside-down inside the steel sight receiver and above the barrel/action group.  The casings are ejected directly down towards the ground at the shooters feet.  I have one and they are the **** when it comes to entering and clearing rooms.  The rapid fire rate in the game should be the standard because this gun shoots blazing fast and fires a 5.7x28mm round that can penetrate level 3A body armor (standard military body armor vest minus the ceramic plates) at 200 meters.  Knock down power is always of question but the uniqueness of the bullet which tumbles inside the body gives the round stopping power.  Although a 45 ACP round would be more devastating at close range, the P90 round makes up for this in magazine capacity, the rounds very fast muzzle velocity, and retained energy at extended ranges because of the rounds much higher ballistic coefficiency (BC).  The UMP is a badass submachine gun, if it wasn't the US Navy SEALs and US Special Forces Detachment Delta would not use it in specialized close quarters missions.  My point being there are only specialized times when that type of weapon system is called for, and that is engagements being no farther than largest room of your personal house.  These types of weapons are great at very close quarters but are "not so ideal" when in mixed engagements such as the Afghanistan theatre or several maps of MW3.

I understand that this range issue has been scaled down for a more arcade style play, but please give some realistic considerations to actual real life military situations.  All in all the game is great minus; some very serious matchmaking issues on the PS3, huge lag variances that make the game unbearable at times, and glitches (being under the map and able to kill other players running overhead) in the game that allow players to cheat ruining the whole quality of the game for everyone else.  Please come out with a patch that would make it worthwhile to take a LMG as opposed to an Assault rifle or SMG.  This works in Black Ops, why can't it work in MW3 and be even better?  The weapon balancing is as simple as LMG's unyielding firepower-limited mobility, Assualt Rifles moderate to high firepower-moderate to high mobility, SMG's limited firepower-best in game mobility.

Other issues to fix, why does a knife thrown from one end of the map to another and hits your player on the foot yield an instant kill whereas the big and badass Barrett 50cal that has killed men in "real life" over 2 miles away only yield a slightly damaged enemy when you shoot the guy in the pelvic region?  Please fix this bullshit!  I'm sorry but throwing knives are not a staple of the US military weaponry, but a 50 BMG round is!  Please make the high caliber sniper rifles absolutely deadly such as the 50 cals, the M118 which shoots a 338 Lapua round and can kill at over 1500 meters, the MSR, and even the inaccurate Russian junk Dragunov SVD which needs only to be able to hit a 4 inch square 50% of the time at 100 meters to pass the field testing.  Yes I am US weapons biased but I atleast can appreciate all weaponary no matter how much the junk factor is (Ahhh yeah the Type 95), there is a reason why more people are killed by an Ak-47 than M16's.  Even though the junk hand me down Ak's are spray and prayed by little 6 year old Tutsis of Rwanda killing a few million of their own people, but Ak's kill because they were of a good design and they almost always go bang.

I love the perks idea and killstreaks, I love the split-screen online play for those of us that have friends in real life and not just digital ones, and I love adding attachments with weapon proficiencies, but damn does MW3 suck in comparison to Battlefield 3 when it comes to realism, environments, vehicles, ballistics, destructible everything, weapon models, and finally SOUNDS!!

To rehash LMG's are the deadliest weapons utilized by a 9 to 12 man infantry squad and since MW3 only supports up to 18 players at a time therefore each battle is between two squads.  LMG's should be much more deadly in game than they actually are, especially the Mk 46!  Some weapon designs are better than others to which some weapons in the game should just be not as good as the rest name the Type 95 again.  The age old Ak-47 should not be in this game and instead should be the Ak-74 but it can give players the balancing dilemma as the M16 vs the Ak-47.  The M16 excelled in accuracy and longer range stopping power while the Ak-47 was better as an up close, spray and pray, rust bucket that would go boom even if burried in the mud for years.

Thank you for taking the time to read all this junk but anyone that has a say in making the gamers happy please make it a bit more realistic when it comes to the weapons because every gamer can appreciate all the weapon systems used in this game.  Thats why we play FPS in the first place right?