Error with the HK21

2006-03-15 18:35:21

#1

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

I found in error concerning the HK21 (Heckler & Koch HK21) support, machine gun in the bf2s wiki section. It seems that the information for the rate of fire is different than the what it says on the official EA site. Here http://wiki.bf2s.com/weapons/hk21 it says it haves a fire rate of 600 per minute. However in the official EA site http://www.ea.com/official/battlefield/ … oforce.jsp it claims the rate of fire is 800 per minute.

Now if I'm correct I'd like to have one of the admins change this information according to the EA site so no other BF2 player will be mistaken. Thanks for your time admins and mods. And if it's not to much trouble can SlyFoxx be added to the special thanks catagory for pointing this small error out? ^_^ Thanks again!

2006-03-15 20:41:50

#2

Syran_the_Heretic: Member; +19|6955

Someone is fishing for a compliment...

2006-03-15 23:32:55

#3

Freebird_117: Member; +0|6924

Hey, slyfox, whats that on your nose?

Looks brown.. :S

Oh its just crap

2006-03-15 23:33:40

#4

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

LOL your just jealous J/K I just want everyone not to be mislead by the false statistic for the machine gun. When I get my next unlock that's the gun I'll pick

2006-03-16 01:17:34

#5

notorious: Nay vee, bay bee.; +1,396|7000|The United Center

you know, theres a stickied thread for pointing out errors in the wiki/ubar.

also, you wont be able to unlock that gun.

2006-03-16 05:17:28

#6

kilroy0097: Kilroy Is Here!; +81|7097|Bryan/College Station, TX

While there is a stick thread on this I'm glad someone took the trouble and double checked things. This is what makes wiki great and accurate. Hard working people who actually look and check to see if it's correct. Don't diss someone who is trying to make things better in this community. Which is something I can't say many of the people who post on these forum ever attempt to do.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

2006-03-16 06:17:33

#7

Burnside44: Member; +0|6931|Wisconsin.

kilroy0097 wrote:
While there is a stick thread on this I'm glad someone took the trouble and double checked things. This is what makes wiki great and accurate. Hard working people who actually look and check to see if it's correct. Don't diss someone who is trying to make things better in this community. Which is something I can't say many of the people who post on these forum ever attempt to do.

Yea... what the heck is up with all the dissing, if some wants to work hard to find corrections, I say keep up the good work.

2006-03-16 14:26:57

#8

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

Burnside44 wrote:
kilroy0097 wrote:
While there is a stick thread on this I'm glad someone took the trouble and double checked things. This is what makes wiki great and accurate. Hard working people who actually look and check to see if it's correct. Don't diss someone who is trying to make things better in this community. Which is something I can't say many of the people who post on these forum ever attempt to do.
Yea... what the heck is up with all the dissing, if some wants to work hard to find corrections, I say keep up the good work.

Thanks guys for your compliment. Yeah I did notice that some people are pricks and don't appreciate these kinds of efforts to help this site out. Either way I'll be sure to make a repeat of this post in the stick thread in this forum. Thanks

2006-03-16 22:27:23

#9

Syran_the_Heretic: Member; +19|6955

You're all fucking retarted, I can't believe it, I'm not going to visit this forum again. He acted like a tard fishing for a compliment and I get harped at because I'm dissing him?

Riiiiight.

2006-03-16 22:32:56

#10

[QXJZ]Capt_Kefra: Alright, you're good to go!; +124|6982|Honolulu, HI

Syran_the_Heretic wrote:
Someone is fishing for a compliment...

Someone has nothing better to do than start flame wars over honest efforts to make this site's information more accurate...

Syran_the_Heretic wrote:
You're all fucking retarted, I can't believe it, I'm not going to visit this forum again. He acted like a tard fishing for a compliment and I get harped at because I'm dissing him?

Riiiiight.

Then leave. Don't expect any of us to unbunch your panties on the way out, though.

2006-03-17 09:48:18

#11

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

I was hoping we'd talk about the support kits instead of bashing others but I can't stop that lol

2006-03-18 02:36:15

#12

robsmithuk: Member; +0|6869|UK

well that is true slyfoxx, but you've missed the fact that the l96 isn't actually an l96, it's the arctic warfare model, (you can tell by the butt shape - there's a dog leg similar to the pkm series where the butt plate is slightly lower then the flat bit in front to give better grip for the non firing hand to hold when shooting off a 'pod). They are both made by accuracy international, but the PM (precision magazine, adopted by ministry of defence as the l96a1) was the first one, then AI improved the design for better cold weather performance for the norwegian armed forces. Bear in mind rate of fire is only a rough estimate, it depends on ammo load, quality of weapon maintance and conditions on firing (ie in desert sand gets in the action, slows everything down by introducing friction). But how many people do you think a) care and b) would make a difference to?

Rob

2006-03-18 04:11:43

#13

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6918|NT, like Mick Dundee

@ robsmithuk... Why are you talking about the L96? Oh, and it is the L96... It is NOT the artic warfare police, it MIGHT be the artic warfare supressed, as another thread discussed the subject extensively...

I really like the HK21, only used it in the weapons test mod though. Some of my friends have EF and say that the maps are really different from the ordinary BF2 maps so I'm thinking of buying EF...

HK21 is the best gun to use on Karkand... Wish it was an unlock. Oh, well done on picking up the wiki's mistake, they don't tend to make many at all...

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2006-03-18 10:16:28

#14

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

robsmithuk wrote:
well that is true slyfoxx, but you've missed the fact that the l96 isn't actually an l96, it's the arctic warfare model, (you can tell by the butt shape - there's a dog leg similar to the pkm series where the butt plate is slightly lower then the flat bit in front to give better grip for the non firing hand to hold when shooting off a 'pod). They are both made by accuracy international, but the PM (precision magazine, adopted by ministry of defence as the l96a1) was the first one, then AI improved the design for better cold weather performance for the norwegian armed forces. Bear in mind rate of fire is only a rough estimate, it depends on ammo load, quality of weapon maintance and conditions on firing (ie in desert sand gets in the action, slows everything down by introducing friction). But how many people do you think a) care and b) would make a difference to?

Rob

Ok first of all... Sergeant. You obviously haven't a lot of experience playing this game. Also a difference between 600 fire rate per minute from 800 rate fire per minute is a big difference. A) More players that you can think of, that don't underestimate the supports kits do care. B) Yes it does make a difference... That's a 25% difference in speed. A noticeable difference. And what the hell are you talking about all this norwegian, weather performance and weapon maintenance crap? What you just said doesn't have any affect on anything in BF2... cause it's a game. I guess next time I start firing on someone in the Gulf of Oman map and he turns around and kills me. I'll blame it on the sand making friction with my shots.

Last edited by SlyFoxx (2006-03-18 10:17:15)

2006-03-18 11:01:40

#15

bs6749: Member; +3|6997

How do you know that the information is not wrong on EA's end? After all, they sure are know for some great fuck-ups and this tiny bit of information about the rate of fire for an MG sure wouldn't be immune to their blundering ways. Just curious as to why anyone really gives a flying fuck about the rate of fire anyway. If it is a good weapon, then it is a good weapon. I think some of you get way into this GAME. Yeah guys, it's a GAME!

For those of you who care: http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg18-e.htm

2006-03-18 11:12:33

#16

bs6749: Member; +3|6997

SlyFoxx wrote:
Ok first of all... Sergeant. You obviously haven't a lot of experience playing this game. Also a difference between 600 fire rate per minute from 800 rate fire per minute is a big difference. A) More players that you can think of, that don't underestimate the supports kits do care. B) Yes it does make a difference... That's a 25% difference in speed. A noticeable difference. And what the hell are you talking about all this norwegian, weather performance and weapon maintenance crap? What you just said doesn't have any affect on anything in BF2... cause it's a game. I guess next time I start firing on someone in the Gulf of Oman map and he turns around and kills me. I'll blame it on the sand making friction with my shots.

LOL. I just love how everyone uses someone's rank to determine their experinece or intelligence. Slyfoxx how do you know that this isn't Rob's 2nd, 3rd, or 4th account, or possibly more? Many people have multiple accounts you know. Seeing as how you couldn't tell that it was a 33% increase in the rate of fire rather than a 25% I wouldn't expect you to know much at all. How is that for being prejudice motherfucker?

Here is the math if you were stuck: 800 - 600 = 200 (The increase in rounds/minute from 600)

200 / 600 = 1/3 ~ 33% (The percentage increase in rounds/minute from the original 600)

2006-03-18 14:10:21

#17

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

lol 33% even better!

2006-03-18 14:48:11

#18

LaLegion1981: Member; +0|6882

It's a GAME dude how cares

2006-03-20 02:11:48

#19

robsmithuk: Member; +0|6869|UK

well it is my first account, but I do have a lot of experience with firearms, as apart from being brought on a farm, I'm an ex-cadet/now instructor with the army cadet force, and do an awful lot of work with the shooting team where I was the county LMG gunner while we had them, using the l86 (the l85's longer/bigger barreled variant), so while I have only been playing this for about 30 hours, I have plenty of real world knowledge, which do you think is better?

My point about the rate of fire of an automatic is that it is a ROUGH ESTIMATE, not set in stone, as it varies on conditions, as I already mentioned. So if it was 800 instead of 600, you'd get an extra 3 and a third bullets a second, but does that matter when you should be firing bursts with MG's anyway? and if your going after realism, what about damage rates??? somebody surviving a headshot from anything, very very very unlikely, esp with the barrett.

2006-03-20 16:53:27

#20

SlyFoxx: Member; +-1|6871

lol well like LaLegion1981 said two days ago. It's a game. We all know that getting shot in the head in real life is fatal with some major rare exception. But anyways I just think the admins of this site should still change the specs on the HK21 for everyone's convience. It just makes the EF Booster game look better with the right specs on it. And from what I see they still haven't changed the specs on the dam LMG...

BF2S Forums Error with the HK21

kilroy0097 wrote:

Burnside44 wrote:

kilroy0097 wrote:

Syran_the_Heretic wrote:

Syran_the_Heretic wrote:

robsmithuk wrote:

SlyFoxx wrote:

Board footer