The Pulsar has no buttstock... was it like that before? - Page 2

krnasaur · 2011-11-24, 12:46 PM

Who says the pulsar will be MA this time around? maybe it is their SMG, where a buttstock is less necessary

LZachariah · 2011-11-24, 12:54 PM

Buttstocks are necessary for basically every gun. I hear what you're saying, of course, and you're right, that's totally possible. If you do a quick scan of submachineguns, you'll see that lots of them have stocks. Some don't, for sure, like the mini-AK and the mini-Uzi.

So yeah, your theory is possible. (and also, what we're seeing in this photo might NOT be the standard Pulsar; it might be the submachinegun variant of it).

wildcat140679 · 2011-11-24, 01:16 PM

Has it been officially confirmed that those screen's hold a pulsar?
For all we know the VS have there own energy based shotgun

Joking aside, I'm not really troubled with the different looks that the new pulsar has, assuming it is a pulsar

I'll use it and learn to love it, even with out the buttstock.

Wizkid45 · 2011-11-24, 04:20 PM

Maybe they'll have a buttstock available as an upgrade for improved accuracy or less cone of fire/recoil.

LZachariah · 2011-11-24, 04:31 PM

That's what I posited earlier in this thread, yeah.

Erendil · 2011-11-24, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by LZachariah

Ah, ok, so it DID have a rear stock; that's what I thought. Now, to be sure, the new one looks beautiful, but the omission of a stock seems odd to me.

Perhaps there will be a sidegrade that reduces ammunition in favor of more accuracy and puts a stock on the back or something.

Actually if you look at the in-game models in PS1 it's clear that none of the ESMA "rifles" had useable buttstocks. It's one of the things that really bugged me about them.

The only one that might've had a buttstock was the Cycler, which looks like it may have had a retractable one. But even then it was always in the retracted position so it wouldn't do much good anyway.

I'm glad that they've added stocks to the PS2 Gauss and Cycler. I REALLY REALLY hope they add one to the Pulsar too cuz even without a significant kick it'd still benefit from one.

Almost all SMG's these days have at minimum a retractable/detachable stock, and for good reason. It helps keep the weapon steady when firing, let's you acquire/track targets more quickly and accurately in the ready position, helps you keep on target while on the move, and keeps your arms from getting tired when held in ready for long periods.

So Yeah, TRay if you're reading this, PLEASE give the Pulsar a buttstock.

That one noob · 2011-11-25, 01:41 AM

Perhaps it is a variant of the Pulsar, which would allow greater mobility at the cost of aiming stability and accuracy from hip firing. Or it could be the carbine version the Pulsar.

Xyntech · 2011-11-25, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by That one noob

Perhaps it is a variant of the Pulsar, which would allow greater mobility at the cost of aiming stability and accuracy from hip firing. Or it could be the carbine version the Pulsar.

So far we've seen at least two variants of the Pulsar (one with a piece in front of the handgrip similar to the beamer, one without. Neither has had a buttstock.

But yeah, they have confirmed at least 4 variants for each rifle per empire, so we still may have more to see. They also may not have decided on a design yet, the entire game still being under heavy development.

LZachariah · 2011-11-25, 08:58 AM

I'm definitely in agreement with Erendil. Hopefully, there will be at least one variant of the Pulsar that has a buttstock; it is a good sign that the other two ES MA weapons seem to have stocks, it would be a big step backwards in terms of realism for the Pulsar not to have one; weapons are aimed and anchored by pressing them into the body/shoulder.

Aractain · 2011-11-25, 12:22 PM

Remember that buttstocks are great customisation options (well apart from what the disadvantage is, slower weapon sight time? As in how long it brings up the iron sights - I think BF3 does this. Someone mentioned less mobility but that dosn't really make sense but this is close.)

Erendil · 2011-11-26, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Aractain

Remember that buttstocks are great customisation options (well apart from what the disadvantage is, slower weapon sight time? As in how long it brings up the iron sights - I think BF3 does this. Someone mentioned less mobility but that dosn't really make sense but this is close.)

The lack of a buttstock offers less mobility if you have to keep your sights on target the whole time while moving.

IMO a buttstock shouldn't be only available as a sidegrade to the empire whose theme is versatility. That is the opposite of versatile. If anything the TR would fit more into that situation with their high RoF, low damage philosophy (since by contrast the low RoF, high damage NC need to make sure every shot counts).

I know at this point putting one on the Pulsar is mainly an aesthetics thing, but since it'll likely be my weapon of choice in PS2 (it has been for 90% of the time I've played VS in PS1) it'll really bug me if it doesn't have one by default, especially if/when resources dictate that I can't pull a customized Pulsar from a term.

LZachariah · 2011-11-26, 04:39 PM

Erendil, you have basically described EXACTLY where I stand with the situation (all the way down to my using the Pulsar about 90% of the time in PS1). I absolutely want a buttstock on my Pulsar, and it would be best if it were on all versions of the gun (thereby letting me choose some other sidegrade variant), because even if there is only one variant of the Pulsar with a buttstock, that will be the one I use. And yes, I definitely agree with you that it is mostly aesthetic, but to me, it's almost like having a gun with no magazine; omitting it is borderlining on unrealistic.

Captain1nsaneo · 2011-11-26, 11:49 PM

All the MA have buttstocks. It's just that the models holding them aren't using them.

But that doesn't help the thread much so let's see if I can help out. First, you guys are right about the stock, it does help and all that jazz. HOWEVER! Check this out:

What you are looking at is a folded stock. Why do these exist? Close range combat. You don't need that stability a stock offers when your inside a building and the ranges are short. The folded stock allows for better maneuverability in tight spaces for rifles.

Finally a quote from T-Ray

Originally Posted by T-Ray

7 words.... Wep Pin Cuss Tim My Zay Shun

Pretty sure you can add a stock. That stockless version probably has a higher RoF for lower CoF or some such.