We need to have a hard look at the balance of the AI-MAXs.

I'm glad we agree, it is pretty obvious that Left arm Scattercannon results are likeky being skewed pretty massively by being a default weapon, even at Q4 aKPH.


Q4 aKPH of Left and Right:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9


Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99
As there is no other really cogent explanation for the CS having such a big difference between left and right arm performance compared to the other NC AI MAX weapons.

Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
= correct

Grinders are better than Mattocks in the 0-8m rangeMattocks (slugs) 615(1230) DPS - Infantry TTK 0.00s- % firing time 41%- % reloading time 59%Grinder (pellets) 1021 (2024) DPS - Infantry TTK 0.00s- % firing time 44%- % reloading time 56%
= correct

Asking if “we're assuming equal accuracy” is a question.
So either you are asking that question (and don't know).
Or you are lying when asking the question (in which case everything you say is clearly questionable).

Either way I'm right!

So if anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement above is “100% wrong”? Er... no.
If anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement is 100% correct!

So if no one assumes equal accuracy my statement above is “100% wrong”? Again... no.
If nobody assumes equal accuracy then my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!

Clearly shows that even in MAX Crashes almost all of the combat is in the 8m+ range.
By all means try to post a video disproving this.

Again there is nothing “hypocritical” about saying:
Nothing beats a NC MAX rush to capture a point inside a room - a completely false statement with no relevance on AI MAX balance because it is false.
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement (if you want to discuss MAX balance)


We could have a pretty interesting discussion about you apparently making a knowingly false statement in the first place and whether that is hypocritical however!

The only context that matters for your Grinder/Mattock is that it is COMPLETELY wrong!


If Grinders and Mattocks “share” 92.8% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Mattock kill way beyond 8m easily and Grinders power drops off massively at 8m+).

Then Blitz and Longshot “share” 75% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Blitz's would mainly kill in the 0-50m range and Longshots in the 100-300m range).


Your calculation is equally wrong and daft for each however as there is NO ranged component in Q4a KPH data.

I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Again as I have said TR/VS AI MAXs have a Carbine weapon damage model, this is easily shown:
MSW-R 0m DPS = 1787
MSW-R 65m DPS = 1562
% DPS retained = 87%

LC2 LYNX 0m DPS = 1893
LC2 LYNX 50m DPS = 1515.
% DPS retained = 80%
2x Onslaught 0m DPS = 2015
2x Onslaught 50m DPS = 1640
% DPS retained = 81%


In fact let use look at how much of a buff giving Onslaughts an LMG model would in fact be:

2x Onslaught 50m DPS = 1640
2x LMGslaught 65m DPS = 1753

So they would gain better damage range drop off, 15m extended damage range and +113 DPS at the minimum damage range.... quite a set of buffs.

So giving TR/VS AI MAX weapons a LMG damage model would significantly buff them. FACT

Again you seem to be directly saying that:

- damage per magazine
- % firing time
- % reloading time

all have no meaning, when clearly they do.


Let us look at Mattocks with Slugs vs Onslaughts:
Mattocks (slugs) 615 (1230) DPS - Infantry TTK (body) 0.00s (head) 0.00s - % firing time 41% - % reloading time 59%
Onslaughts 805 (1610) DPS - Infantry TTK (body) 0.36s (head) 0.13s - % firing time 79% - % reloading time 21%
Mattocks (with slugs) only producing 76% of Onslaught DPS is quite a big difference.
Onslaughts spending 38% less of their time reloading is quite a big difference.
Onslaughts spending 38% more of their time firing is quite a big difference.
And once we add Nanoweave into the picture even in bodyshot TTK Onslaughts can come out on top!


Clearly Onslaughts are more than competitive 0-8m and 8m+ here as I said.

Ah, more proof that backs up my claims. A deviation in left/right arm KPH due to it being a default weapon? What are you implying? A lack of skill? What happened to the following:

Goretzu
Firstly the only aKPH worth using is Q4 or BR100 aKPH because they are the only two that really stands up balance-wise as it only deals with the highest quartile or BR100s

Obviously it's wrong then. Your argument is based off a marginal delta that could very well be sample error. It also has data bias inconsistent to your original claim of using it in the first place. Therefore, your analysis is based off faulty data.

Earlier you claimed that KPH is not a valid metric to compare to TTK or weapon range. Therefore:
Goretzu
Q4 aKPH performance-wise it is Mattocks>SC>Grinder and that given Grinders are the best in the 0-8m range clearly that range isn't the be all of combat = false

Another English idiom that you don't seem to understand. It's a rhetorical question. It's not meant to be answered.

For example:
Are you ********? That makes no sense etc..

Is a rhetorical question.

Goretzu
Certainly all other things being equal a tighter CoF or a smaller Spread is likely to be better,
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot

All things being equal, like accuracy? Then you make this contradictory statement.
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,

Stubbornly repeating the same lies show you have no counter argument. The following post I made last page clearly refutes the above "argument".
Quatin
You have failed. The video is only an example of all use cases, not a representation of what happens in game. Present proof of in game 8m+ combat statistics and game play or resign your argument. You've had plenty of opportunities to offer any proof otherwise.

It is entirely hypocritical to say:
Goretzu
So basically we agree that quite a lot clearly beats an NC AI MAX rush
Goretzu
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement

We could have a pretty interesting discussion about you apparently not reading posts before typing.

Equally, your argument presents the following daft recourse.

Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Goretzu
So giving TR/VS AI MAX weapons a LMG damage model would significantly buff them. FACT (as we can clearly see from the above)

Fact: Heavy Cycler and Mutilator have the exact LMG damage model as MSW-R.
Fact 2: Heavy Cycler and Mutilator have lower KPH than Onslaught.

[/quote]

It has a smaller meaning than 0 TTK. No one agrees with you. Everyone in this thread has pointed out the fallacy in your argument above.

So your “suggestion” for the massive difference in SC (and only SC) left and right arm performance is that “players have more skill in their right mouse button finger than their left”.


So ignoring that fact that this is highly unlikely, why would this ONLY happen with the SC? When the Mattock, Grinder and Hacksaw all have Left/Right Q4 aKPH values very similar to each other?
Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99


Clearly the only cogent explanation is that the Left Scattercannon being a default AI MAX weapon is dragging it down even at Q4 aKPH.

I've never claimed that.
There is no TTK or indeed weapon range component in Q4 aKPH (so I assume you now think you can “calculate” TTK from Q4 aKPH as well as “shared killing range!) and I've no idea why you continue to believe and claim there is!

Again there is nothing “hypocritical” about saying:
Nothing beats a NC MAX rush to capture a point inside a room - a completely false statement with no relevance on AI MAX balance because it is false.
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement (if you want to discuss MAX balance)

We could have a pretty interesting discussion about you apparently making a knowingly false statement in the first place and whether that is hypocritical however!

So if anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement above is “100% wrong”? Er... no.

If anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement is 100% correct!

If no one assumes equal accuracy my statement above is “100% wrong”? Again... no.

If nobody assumes equal accuracy then my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!

So when you said:

Then you were just agreeing with me that both statements are 100% correct, fair enough, we agree!

So you are now claiming this video is “lying”?

Might I remind you (in case you're confabulating again in confusion) that YOU posted it!
It clearly shows that even in a MAX Crash that almost all combat is actually in the 8m+ range it cannot “lie” about what it is clearly demonstrating.

Again as I have said TR/VS AI MAXs have a Carbine weapon damage model, this is easily shown:
MSW-R 0m DPS = 1787
MSW-R 65m DPS = 1562
% DPS retained = 87%

LC2 LYNX 0m DPS = 1893
LC2 LYNX 50m DPS = 1515.
% DPS retained = 80%
2x Onslaught 0m DPS = 2015
2x Onslaught 50m DPS = 1640
% DPS retained = 81%


In fact let use look at how much of a buff giving Onslaughts an LMG model would in fact be:

2x Onslaught 50m DPS = 1640
2x LMGslaught 65m DPS = 1753

So they would gain better damage range drop off, 15m extended damage range and +113 DPS at the minimum damage range.... quite a set of buffs.

So giving TR/VS AI MAX weapons a LMG damage model would significantly buff them. FACT

By all means let us examine this:


The reality of Grinders being better than Mattocks in the 0-8m range comes from this:
Mattocks (slugs) 615 (1230) DPS - Infantry TTK 0.00s - % firing time 41% - % reloading time 59% - damage per mag5000 – damage per shot 500
Grinder (pellets) 1021 (2024) DPS - Infantry TTK 0.00s - % firing time 44% - % reloading time 56% - damage per mag 9360 - damage per shot 780


So basically a Grinder (with pellets) user would kill a Mattock (with slugs) user 100% of the time. (all other things being equal)


Now your claim that “the NC6 SAW is better than the Tempest SMG in 0-8m”:
NC6 SAW 1666 DPS - Infantry TTK 0.60s - % firing time 61% - % reloading time 39% - damage per mag20000 – damage per shot 200
Tempest SMG 1815 DPS - Infantry TTK 0.55s - % firing time 51% - % reloading time 49% - damage per mag 5845 - damage per shot 167


So basically even ignoring things like CoF, Bloom, recoil etc, a Tempest user would kill an NC6 SAW user at 0m 100% of the time. (all other things being equal)
So from that we can see what you're suggesting (that the NC6 SAW is better than the Tempest 0-8m) is complete and utter nonsense, just as much as when your “calculation” suggested that Blitz SMGs and Longshot Sniper Rifles had 75% shared killing range!

Which calculation? What you posted by me a statement/argument not a “calculation”, you seem to be rather confused. Have you lost your dictionary?
Or do you mean your “calculation” (confused again, I guess) which “shows” that Blitz SMGs and Longshot Sniper Rifles had 75% shared killing range!

So you agree all of this has meaning!
Mattocks (slugs) 615 (1230) DPS - Infantry TTK (body) 0.00s (head) 0.00s - % firing time 41% - % reloading time 59%
Onslaughts 805 (1610) DPS - Infantry TTK (body) 0.36s (head) 0.13s - % firing time 79% - % reloading time 21%
Mattocks (with slugs) only producing 76% of Onslaught DPS is quite a big difference.
Onslaughts spending 38% less of their time reloading is quite a big difference.
Onslaughts spending 38% more of their time firing is quite a big difference.
And once we add Nanoweave into the picture even in bodyshot TTK Onslaughts can come out on top!
We just disagree as to the value of the meaning (getting closer to full agreement then).

Well no one except you clearly!

Elaborate why default weapon would reduce KPH.

Also, why does the T9 Carv (default LMG) have higher KPH than Carv-S, 32 Bull, 16 Rhino.

Why does the right arm Pounder (default) have a higher KPH 19.6 than the left arm Pounder 18.9.

I'm afraid you did.

Therefore it renders the following argument false.
Goretzu
Q4 aKPH performance-wise it is Mattocks>SC>Grinder and that given Grinders are the best in the 0-8m range clearly that range isn't the be all of combat

Copied and quoted as proof of trolling.

My original statement post #202:
Quatin
It is entirely hypocritical to say:
Goretzu
So basically we agree that quite a lot clearly beats an NC AI MAX rush
Goretzu
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement

You edited the quote to read:

“It is entirely hypocritical to say:
Nothing beats a NC MAX rush to capture a point inside a room - a completely false statement with no relevance on AI MAX balance because it is false.
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement (if you want to discuss MAX balance)”

Undisputed proof that you're just trolling. You have no counter argument, you are just creating lies to troll with.

I see. Now you are going to argue the definition of rhetorical question, because after all, you have no other basis. A rhetorical question is clearly defined in the dictionary. No matter how much spin you put to it, the meaning won't change.

Quatin
We're assuming equal accuracy? Describe the context in this discussion where unequal accuracy could possibly be a logical assumption

You are trying to change the context of this quote, but you have even failed to take it out of the context of the paragraph. You quote both sentences, which clearly is a challenge to your claim of "having to clarify unequal accuracy". Instead, you dissect each sentence individually, outside of the context of the adjacent sentence. We can describe this methodology with something you said" daft and wrong".

I'm claiming that you are lying. This video clearly destroys any argument you have about the ranges of MAX combat. You clearly have no other resort than to lie about what the video demonstrates, pretending that no one else watched the video. The fact still stands.
Quatin
You have failed. The video is only an example of all use cases, not a representation of what happens in game. Present proof of in game 8m+ combat statistics and game play or resign your argument. You've had plenty of opportunities to offer any proof otherwise.

Fact: Heavy Cycler and Mutilator have the exact LMG damage model as MSW-R.
Fact 2: Heavy Cycler and Mutilator have lower KPH than Onslaught.

By all means let us examine this:

Are you daft? (rhetorical question)

The quote clearly says:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

Scattercannons and Grinders. Where does it mention Mattocks?


Also, you are now retroactively attempting to add a criteria. An element which you were incapable of rationalizing about the Longshot. Therefore, it is invalid. You did not state a criteria in the original claim and you are not afforded one now.

Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

This just shows how silly and wrong your logic is.

Irony you should bring up dictionary. Don't know the meaning of "calculation" or perhaps you don't know the meaning of "your"?

A calculation is a deliberate process that transforms one or more inputs into one or more results, with variable change.
For example, multiplying 7 by 6 is a simple algorithmic calculation.

your: (a form of the possessive case of you used as an attributive adjective):
What I created is a theorem based off a logical fallacy that you earlier introduced:
Quatin
Fact: Grinders have 92.8% KPH of Mattocks.
Grinders range: 0-8m
Mattocks range: 0-8m and 8m+

Therefore, 0-8m combat accounts for 92.8% of all KPH. This is the proof I've shown you 3 pages ago. You have been so dense in your own arguments that you still have not addressed this conclusion or understand that I'm deriving this conclusion from your logic that Grinders represent 0-8m combat.

You then used that theorem by applying new variables and calculated another number. This is the process of a calculation. However, you failed to abide by the boundaries of the variables and therefore calculated an invalid result. Something you have failed to address.

It does have meaning. It does not justify minimizing the effect of TTK like you have done below:
Goretzu
the Onslaught very much is a great CQC weapon, just it doesn't have a 0.0s TTK.

No one agrees with you.

Yup, so this isn't really true at all. Overall, it's all about the same to be perfectly honest. My VS max can't literally instantly kill a shielded heavy assault. I walk into a room with 3 decent played heavy assaults, I'll PROBABLY kill 2 of them, possibly 3, but if I'm alone, I'm probably going down too.

New fun scenario. Scattermax walks into that same room. 3 players start calling for rezzes in proxy chat while a max stomps around on their corpses reloading, waiting fort the poor medic to walk through the door.

Hey that was fun, can we play again?

Just to be clear here that only makes any sense IF Scattercannons do indeed outperform Grinders.
So do you agree (with me) that:
1) Scattercannons outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH
or do you think that:
2) Scattercannons don't outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH


Because you keep saying that 2) is correct, yet clearly your saying here that Scattercannons do in fact outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH which means 1) is correct (which I believe to be true).

Probably because the Carv is arguably the most underrated weapon in the game.
Not only is it an exceedingly easy weapon to just pick up and shoot well with (probably only equalled by the Orion), but it still does what it does well in Q4 aKPH.
T9 CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 42.10
T9 CARV-S | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 40.65
7257 - T32 Bull | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 39.64
T16 Rhino | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 35.07

I would imagine because to get its AI kills (and around 89% of its kills are AI) it requires the massive feat of just being able to aim in the general direction of the enemy..... something that won't get you very far with a Scattercannon.
Also, of course, it may well be that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder combination works effectively very easily as well.

That is the question, at Q4 aKPH it is strange, but what other explanation is there for the difference?

Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99

That's a big change between the two arms.

Scattercannon-Left 371.6
Hacksaw-Right 159.1
Grinder-Right 148.2
AF-41 Hacksaw-Left 143
Grinder-Left 109.6
Mattock-Right 77.3
Mattock-Left 72.3
Scattercannon-Right 49.2

Looking at hours used per month it is used an awful lot more than anyone of the other NC AI MAX weapons.


Strangely, of course, the highest Q4 aKPH (Mattocks) are almost the least used.

We agree it has meaning then for these reasons:
Mattocks (slugs) 615 (1230) DPS - Infantry TTK (body) 0.00s (head) 0.00s - % firing time 41% - % reloading time 59%
Onslaughts 805 (1610) DPS - Infantry TTK (body) 0.36s (head) 0.13s - % firing time 79% - % reloading time 21%
Mattocks (with slugs) only producing 76% of Onslaught DPS is quite a big difference.
Onslaughts spending 38% less of their time reloading is quite a big difference.
Onslaughts spending 38% more of their time firing is quite a big difference.
And once we add Nanoweave into the picture even in bodyshot TTK Onslaughts can come out on top!
We just disagree as to the value of the meaning (getting closer to full agreement then).

Interestingly though when you look at TR AI MAX usage CQC isn't what TR players tend to want:

Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


Ignoring the Heavy Cycler-left (as it is a default) the Mutilator (more mid-range never run out of bullets) and the Mercy (mid to longer range accuracy) seems to be what TR player want.

Both the Mutilator and Mercy being used for significantly more hours per month than any NC AI MAX weapon, except the Scattercannon-left (a default).

This remains totally incorrect.

NC6 SAW 1666 DPS - Infantry TTK 0.60s - % firing time 61% - % reloading time 39% - damage per mag20000 – damage per shot 200
Tempest SMG 1815 DPS - Infantry TTK 0.55s - % firing time 51% - % reloading time 49% - damage per mag 5845 - damage per shot 167


So basically even ignoring things like CoF, Bloom, recoil etc, a Tempest user would kill an NC6 SAW user at 0m 100% of the time. (all other things being equal)
So from that we can see what you're suggesting (that the NC6 SAW is better than the Tempest 0-8m) is complete and utter nonsense, just as much as when your “calculation” suggested that Blitz SMGs and Longshot Sniper Rifles had 75% shared killing range!

Yes that “calculation” the one that “shows” that Blitz SMGs and Longshot Sniper Rifles have a “75% shared killing range” (you've never said if that shared range is the Longshot killing at 0-50m or the Blitz killing at 100-300m).


But again I made a “statement”, not a “calculation”. ;-)

“Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder”






Is a statement, not a calculation as you claim!

If you cannot tell the difference between a “statement” and a “calculation” I'm sure you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it that we agree that my STATEMENT (not calculation) is wrong!
I'm pretty sure it is right!

Again there is nothing “hypocritical” about saying:
Nothing beats a NC MAX rush to capture a point inside a room - a completely false statement with no relevance on AI MAX balance because it is false.
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement (if you want to discuss MAX balance)

The only real issue is why you're make a knowingly false (by you're own admission) statement in a balance discussion.

This video clearly shows the ranges:

So how can I be “lying” when the video itself clearly shows the ranges as almost all combat being in the 8m+ range.
Do you think I secretly filmed the video somehow setting up false ranges and then waited for you to post it!
The video clearly shows the ranges and clearly shows that almost no combat occurs in the 0-8m range, even in a MAX Crash – therefore neither I nor the video itself can be “lying”, the only valid conclusion is that you are wrong about your ranges (by about 2:1)

The context is there for ALL to see:

If anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement is 100% correct!

If nobody assumes equal accuracy then my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!

Not usually! Nor dense, stupid or idiotic as you have repeatedly suggested I am in this thread (for want of a decent counter-argument).

There is no TTK or indeed weapon range component in Q4 aKPH (so I assume you now think you can “calculate” TTK from Q4 aKPH as well as “shared killing range!) and I've no idea why you continue to believe and claim there is!

Just to be clear here, we're talking about your inability to read before you write.

Your response below isn't even on topic. It's just tangential rambling.
Goretzu
The reality of Grinders being better than Mattocks in the 0-8m range comes from this:

The statement you quoted was the following and makes no mention of Mattocks.
Quatin
Equally, your argument presents the following daft recourse.
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

Hearsay and opinions. Where's concrete proof?

What a joke. I'm going quote this and repeat it from now on as proof you don't actually play PS2.

Every single statement you've made here is not just wrong, it is blatantly wrong and obvious to anyone who has ever touched any of these weapons. Pounders require the most amount of precise aiming. It has the largest drop and require direct hits to kill. This much more difficult than Scattercannons, which requires you to point in the general direction of an enemy, because that's the point of a shotgun.

Heavy Cycler/Pounder is the worst default MAX combo, because pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon. Each arm is literally off aim outside of close range.

Post proof otherwise. This is the most ludicrous statement you've made about TR MAX.

You're asking yourself questions? Are you even addressing the topic or just talking to yourself? You can't rationalize anomalies in your own data so you post a bunch of off topic theories and calculations. For what purpose?

This is just more proof for my argument. The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.
Quatin
It also doesn't matter, because any way you look at it, the 2 arm average delta is minimal. So minimal that making the following claim is preposterous:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder,

I'm glad you agree that TTK dominates all other stats. Enough to the point where you can withdraw the following statement as an argument:
Goretzu
the Onslaught very much is a great CQC weapon, just it doesn't have a 0.0s TTK.

No one is fooled by it. Attempting to justify a 0.0s TTK with all the minor statistics is fool hardy.

I'm glad you agree. A Tempest user should dominate a SAW user 100% of the time. Which just shows how wrong and daft the following argument made by you is:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

Because by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

Which you agree is wrong.

Arguing over semantics. The final death throes of a weak argument.

Here's a chronological order of events:
Goretzu
If Grinders and Mattocks “share” 92.8% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Mattock kill way beyond 8m easily and Grinders power drops off massively at 8m+).
Then Blitz and Longshot “share” 75% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Blitz's would mainly kill in the 0-50m range and Longshots in the 100-300m range).

Quatin
Equally, your argument presents the following daft recourse.
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Goretzu
Which calculation? What you posted by me a statement/argument not a “calculation”, you seem to be rather confused. Have you lost your dictionary?

The Blitz/Longshot one. Or do you agree that the following is daft?
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

The topic in the last 2 post trains was your blatant violations of clearly defined or (obvious in context), criterias for comparison. I've stated multiple times that AI MAX KPH comparisons in such a manner is valid only for the same platform and effective range. You've ignored it. Therefore, if we ignore criterias for comparison then we arrive at the following logical conclusion:

Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Therefore, your "calculations" on Blitz/Longshot is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!.

You don't need to take my word for it. You clearly posted it above. If you cannot find it then you have no proof you have not agreed and indeed that I have not already quoted it above and therefore clearly I must be correct and you have agreed.

Troll harder. I'm going to keep correcting your feeble attempts in editing written posts. Original unedited post, clearly revealing your hypocrisy:

Goretzu
So basically we agree that quite a lot clearly beats an NC AI MAX rush
Goretzu
Not much beats a TR/VS/NC MAX rush to capture point inside a room - a completely correct statement

Original Lie:
Goretzu
Clearly shows that even in MAX Crashes almost all of the combat is in the 8m+ range.
Repeated disproven:
Quatin
You have failed. The video is only an example of all use cases, not a representation of what happens in game. Present proof of in game 8m+ combat statistics and game play or resign your argument. You've had plenty of opportunities to offer any proof otherwise.

Yes, the context is very clear for everyone to see.

Quatin
We're assuming equal accuracy? Describe the context in this discussion where unequal accuracy could possibly be a logical assumption

Is clearly a challenge for you to demonstrate where in our discussion that "unequal accuracy" could be an assumption. Not a literal question.

The context is also very clear for everyone to see that the following consecutive posts are absolutes and written in reference to each other.
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times.
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,
You can defend each statement individually, but the fact that you made them in consecutive posts in the same topic shows you are being a hypocrite, because the first claim contradicts the 2nd claim or you are back pedaling by adding caveats.

Not usually. Thereby implying that sometimes you are daft, dense, stupid or idiotic?

[/quote]
Earlier you claimed that KPH is not a valid metric to compare to TTK or weapon range.

Therefore it renders the following argument false.
Goretzu
Q4 aKPH performance-wise it is Mattocks>SC>Grinder and that given Grinders are the best in the 0-8m range clearly that range isn't the be all of combat

Insults just continue to show you have no counter-argument!

But at least we have cleared up that you agree that Scattercannons DO outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, as we have agreed that the statement only makes any sense if you agree that Scattercannon do in fact outperform Grinders (which they do, of course).
Q4 aKPH of Left and Right:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9

Of course, what else can it be? Concrete proof of what? Even SOE/DBG has nothing of the sort, you have nothing of the sort, so why would I? What indeed is “concrete proof” by your definition? 95% confidence?
Both the Carv and the Orion are default weapons and so is the NC6 SAW:

KPH
Orion | KPH | Daily Average: 27.10
CARV | KPH | Daily Average: 22.92
NC6 SAW | KPH | Daily Average: 21.18

Q4 aKPH
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 44.57
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 42.10
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 36.51

KPH to Q4aKPH difference:
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 17.47
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 19.18
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 15.33

So why does the NC6 SAW have a smaller increase? Where is the “concrete proof” of why this occurs?

There's good reason 89% of Pounder KPH are AI.

Pounders function better with better aim, certainly, but equally they have the best AI AOE of any MAX weapon, certainly it is a small AOE, but it functions pretty well with an effective 8 shot mag just on AOE from being mostly on target or just off target.

As for aiming them being “difficult”, this is not really the case as the drop is pretty easy to get use too, in fact in the longer ranges Pounders tend to be effective it can actually be useful at it allows you to loop shots over cover (which is useful in two ways – one it can allow you to hit targets in cover and two it can allow you to fire on occasion without being able to be hit back by direct fire). Original Falcons used to be a favourite NC MAX mid-long range AI option when they had a similar fire arc to the current Pounders.

Conversely Scattercannons start to miss even with perfect aim with range due to CoF and Spread – and by “range” this is starting to regularly occur by just 8m. At 8m anyone (given there is effectively NO drop at 0-8m) should be able to hit with a Pounder I think!

My statement (and it wasn't a calculation remember) was:
I said: Also, of course, it may well be that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder combination works effectively very easily as well.

That doesn't sound very “ludicrous” does it?
Works effectively very easily....... unfortunately there is no data set for how effectively something works for how easy it is to work that effectively.
If you have any suggestion of how that data set could be recorded then I'm be very interested (as I suspect would SOE/DBG).

Firstly what do you define as “close range”?

0-8m?
0-16m?
0-24m?
0-32m?

This is quite important, because at 0-10m the Pounder projectile arc is pretty much you hit exactlywhat you aim at.

This is easy to test (and demonstrate) in the VR:
10m – aim at Head = hit Head
20m – aim at Head = hit Upper Chest (right between pectoral muscles)
30m – aim at Head = hit Groin (ouch! )
40m – aim at Head = hit Shins.
50m – aim at Head = hit Feet with AOE.


So what would be “close range there”, 10m is a direct shot effectively, 20m it pretty close to a direct shot, only by 30m is arc starting to be any issue at all really and only by 50m do you really have to actually factor in the arc to get a hit.

Again statistical kill performance does not necessarily correlate to works effectively very easily.


However let us look at your claim that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder is “the worst default MAX”:

Heavy Cycler-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 25.74
Pounder HEG-Right | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 19.68
DefaultCombined | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 45.42

Scattercannon-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 32.32
Falcon-Right | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 14.60
Default Combined | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 46.92

Quasar VM1-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 28.0
Comet VM2-Right | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 11.90
Default Combined | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 39.90

NC DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 46.92
TR DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 45.42
VS DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 39.90

So clearly the NC and TR default MAXs are pretty close in Q4 aKPH, but the VS default MAX is significantly below – the TR default MAX is definitely NOT “the worse default MAX” in Q4 aKPH.



So now let us look at general KPH (which takes allows at least some vague measure of “easy of use”):

M1 Heavy Cycler-Left | KPH | Daily Average: 17.83
Pounder HEG-Right | KPH | Daily Average: 14.07
Default Combined | KPH | Daily Average: 31.09

Scattercannon-Left | KPH | Daily Average: 17.94
Falcon-Right | KPH | Daily Average: 8.70
Default Combined | KPH | Daily Average: 26.64

Quasar VM1-Left | KPH | Daily Average: 19.4
Comet VM2-Right | KPH | Daily Average: 9.40
Comet VM2-Right | KPH | Daily Average: 28.80

TR DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 31.09
VS DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 28.80
NC DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 26.64

So clearly the TR and VS default MAXs are pretty close in Q4 aKPH, but the NC default MAX is significantly below – the TR default MAX is definitely NOT “the worse default MAX” in aKPH.


Interestingly I think this backs up what I said:

I said: Also, of course, it may well be that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder combination works effectively very easily as well.

As much as any data set possibly can, of course, as this does seem to suggest that the TR default MAX performs the best and a likely reason for that in general aKPH would indeed be that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder combination works effectively very easily as well!

Questioning everything is the only rational stand point.

Given that your have agreed above that the Scattercannon does in fact you out perform the Grinder you've basically completely undermined your own “delta defence”.
However the more cogent point would be what is causing this:
Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99

And what is causing such a BIG difference between SC Left and Right arms when none of the other NC AI MAX weapons show anything like such a big difference?

There must be something else if as you claim it is NOT that the SC Left is a Default weapon.

I can and have (it is a default weapon) it is up to you to suggest a cogent alternative if you think it is not that.

I don't agree, and interestingly neither do TR players!

Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6

The Mutilator (more mid-range never run out of bullets) and the Mercy (mid to longer range accuracy) seems to be what TR player want, if it was TTK the Onslaught would be most used, yet clearly IT IS NOT!


I guess in the terms of the Mutilator quantity has a quality all of its own, and the Mercy combines quantity and accuracy.

Also with the Mutilator and Mercy being used for significantly more hours per month than any NC AI MAX weapon, except the Scattercannon-left (a default), it shows how little NC AI MAX are pulled comparatively due to their more niche nature.

We do agree that your suggestion that the NC6 SAW is better than the Tempest 0-8m is completely and utter incorrect and that shows that a Grinder would also dominate Scattercannon user 100% of the time, all things being equal, (and indeed a Mattock or Hacksaw users 100% of the time) in the 0-8m range, which again goes right back to my point about Grinders being better in the 0-8m range.

Saying that:
Goretzu: Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder


Is quite clearly a statement and not a calculation (as you claim) is most definitely NOT semantics (you seem to have seriously misplaced your dictionary now).... unless your intention is to redefine what are currently agreed as the definitions of a “statement” and a “calculation”.
In which case, good luck with that, but for the moment you're just plain incorrect!

It is!


My 1st Statement: “In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times”
Your claim: “If anyone assumes it then your 1st statement is 100% wrong”
My answer: “If anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement is 100% correct!”


My 2nd Statement: “In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy”
Your claim: “If nobody assumes it then your 2nd statement is 100% wrong.””
My answer: “If nobody assumes equal accuracy then my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!”

Again neither myself of the Video is “lying” the video below clearly shows that even in a MAX Crash almost all combat take place at 8m+.



I've also re-found a video demonstrating what is 15m range for you:

This video again clearly and unequivocally demonstrates what is almost DOUBLE the 0-8m range which shows how close 15m is, never mind 0-8m.


I'm sure you'll tell me this video is “lying” and how it is somehow all my fault as well!

Avoiding the topic shows you have no counter-argument.

Avoiding the topic shows you have no counter-argument.

Goretzu
The reality of Grinders being better than Mattocks in the 0-8m range comes from this:
The statement you quoted was the following and makes no mention of Mattocks.
Quatin
Equally, your argument presents the following daft recourse.
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

Complaining that there is no concrete proof for a statement you made is no excuse. If you don't want to get called out on making childish assumptions, you shouldn't be making them to begin with.

You admit that your counter-argument is baseless (IE no proof). Therefore, it is invalid. The following argument stands unchallenged:

The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.
Quatin
It also doesn't matter, because any way you look at it, the 2 arm average delta is minimal. So minimal that making the following claim is preposterous:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder,

Even more proof that you don't play TR MAX. The above statement is completely false. They aren't even original. We can rehash countless Pounder threads where newbies who never touched pounders or have only played with it in the VR type up the exact same shallow opinions and get completely destroyed with logic and data.

Pounder splash- marginal use. 0.6m outer ring is pretty much a direct hit
Pounder drop - most of all max weapons
Indirect fire with Pounder - complete invention by newbies who never used pounders

The following statement made by you is indefensible:
Quatin
Why does the right arm Pounder (default) have a higher KPH 19.6 than the left arm Pounder 18.9.
Goretzu
I would imagine because to get its AI kills (and around 89% of its kills are AI) it requires the massive feat of just being able to aim in the general direction of the enemy..... something that won't get you very far with a Scattercannon.

Also, none of the above have any relation to:
Goretzu
Clearly the only cogent explanation is that the Left Scattercannon being a default AI MAX weapon is dragging it down even at Q4 aKPH.

Ah, so you're again posting baseless opinions. Well then I accept your withdraw of the following statement:
Goretzu
Also, of course, it may well be that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder combination works effectively very easily as well.

Ah, more proof that you're just using the VR as your sole basis of experience.

You brought up Heavy Cycler/Pounder combo. Since you think TR AI guns are Carbines, you don't realize that they in fact have a fixed CoF. Therefore, aiming at the head means most of your shots are going to miss unless your cone covers their entire head. People who actually play TR MAX, aim for center mass.

The point at which Pounders/cyclers start to diverge in aim is roughly 10m.

The above analysis is complete rubbish.

How do you separate the amount of KPH in the statistics that are in fact a AI/AV combo and not 99% AI/AI and AV/AV?

Ask yourself all the questions you want, but keep it off the forums. This is a place of discourse, not your personal diary.

The actual topic at hand:
Quatin
The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.
Quatin
It also doesn't matter, because any way you look at it, the 2 arm average delta is minimal. So minimal that making the following claim is preposterous:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder,

Complaining that there is no statistical data to back up your opinions is not an explanation. You have failed to support any basis for the following claim:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder,

You most certainly agreed.
Goretzu
We agree it has meaning then

Average weapon hours has too many variables to be used as a metric for what is most effective. This can only be used as a metric if all weapons were available for free and each player decides solely based on weapon performance.

What's a better metric was posted on page #2. Average KPH of the entire user base. How well does a player pick up one of these weapons and start getting kills. That's what is defined below. The higher TTK weapons all tend to be at the top of their respective factions. NC weapons all have 0 TTK, therefore they are all up there.
35,09 8,71 0,08 0,02 AF-34 Mattock-Right
33,16 6,69 0,08 0,02 NCM1 Scattercannon-Right
32,45 8,53 0,08 0,02 AF-34 Mattock-Left
28,99 6,08 0,09 0,02 AF-23 Grinder-Right
27,46 6,91 0,11 0,03 Quasar VM1-Right
27,43 6,31 0,08 0,02 AF-23 Grinder-Left
27,42 7,23 0,07 0,02 AF-41 Hacksaw-Right
27,11 7,21 0,09 0,03 Nebular VM20-Right
27,01 7,13 0,10 0,03 Blueshift VM5-Right
26,99 7,28 0,10 0,03 Blueshift VM5-Left
26,82 7,29 0,07 0,02 AF-41 Hacksaw-Left
26,47 7,46 0,10 0,03 Nebular VM20-Left
26,47 6,76 0,12 0,03 M6 Onslaught-Right
26,18 6,32 0,13 0,03 Cosmos VM3-Right
25,49 6,90 0,10 0,03 M6 Onslaught-Left

Which again just shows how wrong and daft the following argument made by you is:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Because by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

Which you agree is wrong.

You quoted the wrong sentence.

Here's a chronological order of events:
Goretzu
If Grinders and Mattocks “share” 92.8% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Mattock kill way beyond 8m easily and Grinders power drops off massively at 8m+).
Then Blitz and Longshot “share” 75% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Blitz's would mainly kill in the 0-50m range and Longshots in the 100-300m range).

Quatin
Equally, your argument presents the following daft recourse.
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Goretzu
Which calculation? What you posted by me a statement/argument not a “calculation”, you seem to be rather confused. Have you lost your dictionary?

The Blitz/Longshot one. Or do you agree that the following is daft?
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

The topic in the last 2 post trains was your blatant violations of clearly defined or (obvious in context), criterias for comparison. I've stated multiple times that AI MAX KPH comparisons in such a manner is valid only for the same platform and effective range. You've ignored it. Therefore, if we ignore criterias for comparison then we arrive at the following logical conclusion:

Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Therefore, your "calculations" on Blitz/Longshot is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!. [/quote]


quote]
It is!

My 1st Statement: “In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times”
Your claim: “If anyone assumes it then your 1st statement is 100% wrong”
My answer: “If anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement is 100% correct!”


My 2nd Statement: “In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy”
Your claim: “If nobody assumes it then your 2nd statement is 100% wrong.””
My answer: “If nobody assumes equal accuracy then my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!”
[/quote]
It most definitely is. I'm glad you agree that you contradict yourself with one of the above statements.

The context is also very clear for everyone to see that the following consecutive posts are absolutes and written in reference to each other.
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times.
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,
You can defend each statement individually, but the fact that you made them in consecutive posts in the same topic shows you are being a hypocrite, because the first claim contradicts the 2nd claim or you are back pedaling by adding caveats.

It is true that MAX Crashes can occur at varied distances. However, that's not the claim.
Original Lie:
Goretzu
Clearly shows that even in MAX Crashes almost all of the combat is in the 8m+ range.
Repeatedley disproven:
Quatin
You have failed. The video is only an example of all use cases, not a representation of what happens in game. Present proof of in game 8m+ combat statistics and game play or resign your argument. You've had plenty of opportunities to offer any proof otherwise.

The above provides no actual basis for your claims. You've wasted 11 pages of trivial tangential arguments, but still have failed to provide video proof against my argument from page 1:
Quatin
The problem is NC MAX excel in the 2 areas where MAX units are most useful. Rush points. Destroy vehicles

Insults just show you have no valid counter-arguments!

There is proof though:
KPH
Orion| KPH | Daily Average: 27.10
CARV| KPH | Daily Average: 22.92
NC6 SAW | KPH | Daily Average: 21.18

Q4 aKPH
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 44.57
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 42.10
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 36.51

KPH to Q4aKPH difference:
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 17.47
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 19.18
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 15.33


This shows that default weapon can be affected differently. It is not “concrete proof” because such a thing cannot exist (and as such asking for it is just a poor Strawman Argument – as an example – provide “concrete proof” here that the Sun will rise tomorrow), nor in fact have you said what your definition of “concrete proof” is despite being asked.
So maybe this is “concrete proof”, I dunno.

We've already cleared this up Scattercannons DO outperform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, as we have agreed that the statement you refered to only makes any sense if you agree that Scattercannon do in fact outperform Grinders (which they do, of course).
Q4 aKPH of Left and Right:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9

Pounder kills? 89% are AI – correct.


Pounder AOE? Best of all AV MAXs and capabably of killing just with AOE hits – correct (it is very small as I said, but enough for a near miss).


Pounder Drop?
10m – aim at Head = hit Head
20m – aim at Head = hit Upper Chest (right between pectoral muscles)
30m – aim at Head = hit Groin (ouch! )
40m – aim at Head = hit Shins.
50m – aim at Head = hit Feet with AOE.


So 10m is there effectively no drop. 20m there is hardly any drop (not enough to need to reaim) 30m you start to get noticeable drop, but it takes 50m before you'd need to re-aim above the targets head to hit them and at 50m you're likely just Poundering an area like a spawn door not aiming at individual infantry!


So all correct!

A baseless opinion would be:
Quatin: Heavy Cycler/Pounder is the worst default MAX combo, because pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon.


As TR are 1st in overall KPH default MAX and 2nd in Q4 aKPH MAXs..... you can't get much more baseless and incorrect than that!

Not baseless as we can see:


NC DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 46.92
TR DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 45.42
VS DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 39.90
TR DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 31.09
VS DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 28.80
NC DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 26.64


As we can clearly see it would seem that there is some factor of “works effectively very easily as well” in play here as in general KPH the TR default MAX is 1st (not “the worst” as you claim!) and in Q4 aKPH it is 2nd (again not “the worst” as you claim!).

Nonsense it is simply by far the best place to provide data like this:
This is easy to test (and demonstrate) in the VR:
10m – aim at Head = hit Head
20m – aim at Head = hit Upper Chest (right between pectoral muscles)
30m – aim at Head = hit Groin (ouch!)
40m – aim at Head = hit Shins.
50m – aim at Head = hit Feet with AOE.


Trying to do it outside the VR requires 2 people and a quiet place, it would show exactly the same results however!

As we can clearly see from above IF you aimed at center-mass with your Heavy Cycler you wouldn't miss with your Pounder until 30-40m (outside anything but Mattock with Slug range for NC AI MAX weapons).
Given that you have claimed you cannot hit much with a Mercy at 30m I don't think you're going to be having much luck with a Heavy Cycler by 30-40m anyway!

Trying to change the critea now eh? I think you've mentioned some things about how you feel about that!
However it is irrelevant in two ways anyway:
1) you're statement:
Quatin: Heavy Cycler/Pounder is the worst default MAX combo, because pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon.

Makes NO mention of that, adding “caveats” later is... well you can see what you claimed it was above!


2) You can calculate AI rates anyway, which is where you can find the 89% of Pounder kills are AI, also given that all 3 default AV MAX weapons perform pretty similarly AV-wise:
Pounder HEG-Right | Vehicle KPH | Daily Average: 2.19
Comet VM2-Right | Vehicle KPH | Daily Average: 2.72
NCM2 Falcon-Right | Vehicle KPH | Daily Average: 2.38
Again it clearly shows that the TR default MAX is most definitely NOT “the worst default MAX combo”.
It is either the best or the 2nd best without any doubt at all!

I'm pretty sure you're NOT my wife or my mother, so I'm pretty sure you have no say over what I do!

There is clear statistical data to back up what I'm saying:
Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99


As we can see the only NC AI MAX weapon where left and right weapons have a large performance difference (in Q4 aKPH) is with the SC.
What is the only difference between the Left SC and all the other NC AI MAX weapons? Yes, that is correct it is a default.
I can think of NO other explanation for the difference, and it seems neither can you!

We do agree that your suggestion that the NC6 SAW is better than the Tempest 0-8m is completely and utter incorrect and that shows that a Grinder would also dominate Scattercannon user 100% of the time, all things being equal, (and indeed a Mattock or Hacksaw users 100% of the time) in the 0-8m range, which again goes right back to my point about Grinders being better in the 0-8m range.

Nope it is right one:
Saying that:
Goretzu: Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

And it is quite clearly a statement and not a calculationas you claim!

As I've said your “calculation” that “shows” ( ) that the Grinders and Mattocks “share 92.8% of their Q4 aKPH killing range” which also shows Blitz and Longshots share “75% of their Q4 aKPH killing range” is completely incorrect, baseless and meaningless.
We've agreed this ages ago; your calculation is wrong, we completely agree.

My 1st Statement: “In the 0-8m range both CoF and Spread difference play a much smaller role than damager per shot, damage per second, damage per mag and % firing and % reload times”
Your claim: “If anyone assumes it then your 1st statement is 100% wrong”
My answer: “If anyone assumes equal accuracy my statement is 100% correct!”




My 2nd Statement: “In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy”
Your claim: “If nobody assumes it then your 2nd statement is 100% wrong.””
My answer: “If nobody assumes equal accuracy then my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!”


No contradiction there, just you being wrong, sorry.

Both of those videos clearly demonstrate that even in MAX Crashes very little combat occurs in the 0-8m range, and that most of MAX Crash combat occurs in the 8-30m range.

The videos aren't “lying” about this, it is just either you genuinely are still totally confused about actual ranges in game or you know I'm absolutely right (and the videos are right) but just cannot bring yourself to admit it.

Neither option changes the undeniable truth of the videos!

It shows exactly what players ARE USING (now)!
If as you claim “TTK dominates all other stats” then TR MAX users should be using the Onslaught all the time (or at least the most), but as we can see THIS IS NOT SO:

Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


TR players clearly much prefer the Mutilator and the Mercy over the Onslaught (which clearly shows they DO NOT think “TTK dominates all other stats”, and indeed use both more that all NC AI MAX weapons but the default SC.


If you want to have an argument with the entire TR player base (telling them they are “wrong” and “lying”) then by all means you can!

[/quote]
Given that you have claimed you cannot hit much with a Mercy at 30m I don't think you're going to be having much luck with a Heavy Cycler by 30-40m anyway!

No contradiction there, just you being wrong, sorry.

I'm pretty sure you're NOT my wife or my mother, so I'm pretty sure you have no say over what I do! [/quote]

Insults just show you have no valid counter-arguments!

Once again, the argument of semantics. The death throes of a losing argument.

Concrete proof exists. It is by definition:
constituting an actual thing or instance; real:
The Sun is real. The Earths rotation is real. You can feel it and you can see it. The concept and science behind sunrise is backed by concrete proof.

Goretzu
Probably because the Carv is arguably the most underrated weapon in the game.
The above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion.

You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it.

Avoiding the topic shows you have no counter argument.

Quatin
The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote

It's all wrong. You can claim whatever you want. No one believes you, because all practical proof suggests otherwise.

Pounder splash- marginal use. 0.6m outer ring is pretty much a direct hit
Pounder drop - most of all max weapons
Indirect fire with Pounder - complete invention by newbies who never used pounders

You brought up Heavy Cycler/Pounder combo. Since you think TR AI guns are Carbines, you don't realize that they in fact have a fixed CoF. Therefore, aiming at the head means most of your shots are going to miss unless your cone covers their entire head. People who actually play TR MAX, aim for center mass.

The point at which Pounders/cyclers start to diverge in aim is roughly 10m.

Provide proof that your KPH data is not 100% dual Pounders and dual Heavy cyclers. You can't, therefore it is invalid. You have no proof, you admit you have no proof.
Goretzu
unfortunately there is no data set for how effectively something works for how easy it is to work that effectively.

Ah, even more proof you don't play MAX. You're sole experience is in the VR rooms. 20m, the pounder round hits the feet/shins. If your aim is off by a small margin, you miss. If your target is on an incline such as hill/stairs, you miss. If your target is behind any cover shin high you miss.

Please provide proof behind:
Goretzu
Also, of course, it may well be that the Heavy Cycler/Pounder combination works effectively very easily as well.

Quatin:
Heavy Cycler/Pounder is the worst default MAX combo, because pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon

Are you saying drop is the criteria? Then the statement is proven true. Pounders have the most amount of drop on any 1st gen AV weapon.

Quatin
The above analysis is complete rubbish. How do you separate the amount of KPH in the statistics that are in fact a AI/AV combo and not 99% AI/AI and AV/AV?

All you've stated is left arm and right arm is different. You've provided no proof as to why they are different. Your reasoning of default does not apply to LMGs or 1st gen AV weapons. Just because you can't explain it, does not mean any random theory you come up with is fact.


Therefore:
The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.
Quatin
It also doesn't matter, because any way you look at it, the 2 arm average delta is minimal. So minimal that making the following claim is preposterous:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder,

Which again just shows how wrong and daft the following argument made by you is:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Because by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.

Which you agree is wrong.

Then you are just talking to yourself. I have corrected you twice already on which quote I was referring to.

Here's a chronological order of events:
Goretzu
If Grinders and Mattocks “share” 92.8% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Mattock kill way beyond 8m easily and Grinders power drops off massively at 8m+).
Then Blitz and Longshot “share” 75% of their Q4 aKPH kills in a shared killing range (when Blitz's would mainly kill in the 0-50m range and Longshots in the 100-300m range).

Quatin
Equally, your argument presents the following daft recourse.
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Goretzu
Which calculation? What you posted by me a statement/argument not a “calculation”, you seem to be rather confused. Have you lost your dictionary?

The Blitz/Longshot one. Or do you agree that the following is daft?
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

The topic in the last 2 post trains was your blatant violations of clearly defined or (obvious in context), criterias for comparison. I've stated multiple times that AI MAX KPH comparisons in such a manner is valid only for the same platform and effective range. You've ignored it. Therefore, if we ignore criterias for comparison then we arrive at the following logical conclusion:

Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder
Well, by that logic:
Tempest SMG (39.27 kph) out performs NC Gauss SAW (35.71 KPH), because they are better at 8m+ than NC Gauss SAW.
I'm also glad we have now agreed that your “calculation” is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!

Therefore, your "calculations" on Blitz/Longshot is completely and utterly wrong, incorrect and meaningless too!.

Goretzu
my clarification of “for the same level of accuracy” is clearly absolutely NEEDED and my statement remains 100% correct!”

So you admit to backpedaling with a caveat. Your "clarification" adds a "limitation" of equal accuracy to the statement.

ca·ve·at
a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.

Which contradicts earlier when I wrote:
Quatin
Updated quote with caveat:
Goretzu
In the 0-8m range the Mattocks better velocity, drop off, CoF and Spread do not make any difference for the same level of accuracy,
Back pedaling.

Goretzu
Again there is no caveat

It is true that MAX Crashes can occur at varied distances. However, that's not the claim.

Original Lie:
Goretzu
Clearly shows that even in MAX Crashes almost all of the combat is in the 8m+ range.
Repeatedley disproven:
Quatin
You have failed. The video is only an example of all use cases, not a representation of what happens in game. Present proof of in game 8m+ combat statistics and game play or resign your argument. You've had plenty of opportunities to offer any proof otherwise.

Average weapon hours has too many variables to be used as a metric for what is most effective. This can only be used as a metric if all weapons were available for free and each player decides solely based on weapon performance.

What's a better metric was posted on page #2. Average KPH of the entire user base. How well does a player pick up one of these weapons and start getting kills. That's what is defined below. The higher TTK weapons all tend to be at the top of their respective factions. NC weapons all have 0 TTK, therefore they are all up there.
35,09 8,71 0,08 0,02 AF-34 Mattock-Right
33,16 6,69 0,08 0,02 NCM1 Scattercannon-Right
32,45 8,53 0,08 0,02 AF-34 Mattock-Left
28,99 6,08 0,09 0,02 AF-23 Grinder-Right
27,46 6,91 0,11 0,03 Quasar VM1-Right
27,43 6,31 0,08 0,02 AF-23 Grinder-Left
27,42 7,23 0,07 0,02 AF-41 Hacksaw-Right
27,11 7,21 0,09 0,03 Nebular VM20-Right
27,01 7,13 0,10 0,03 Blueshift VM5-Right
26,99 7,28 0,10 0,03 Blueshift VM5-Left
26,82 7,29 0,07 0,02 AF-41 Hacksaw-Left
26,47 7,46 0,10 0,03 Nebular VM20-Left
26,47 6,76 0,12 0,03 M6 Onslaught-Right
26,18 6,32 0,13 0,03 Cosmos VM3-Right
25,49 6,90 0,10 0,03 M6 Onslaught-Left

You have now seceded from all the original topics of contention. Every argument you have made on the first 2 pages has been soundly defeated and from the last post, you have ceased to address the rest of the lose ends tied to them. It thereby ends the discussion made by the OP. Let's summarize.

Post #1

Quatin
Heavies and Medics can use PA shotguns. They are included in the Q4 aKPH data for PA shotgun, but you only want to compare to carbines. Therefore, exclude the aKPH contributed by Heavies and Medics using PA shotguns, because they cannot equip carbines.

HA + Shield + Shotgun is one of the most powerful combos in the game and is frequently brought up as being OP.
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...avy-assault-and-shotguns-too-powerful.125154/

Therefore, ignoring the KPH contribution of Heavies in shotguns is invalid.

Post #2

Quatin
Are you seriously trying to support your argument by pointing at Scatters having 6% less KPH than Mattocks? Everyone else sacrifices range for TTK, but if your TTK is 0, it doesn't quite matter. All NC AI weapons can instagib in the 0-8m range therefore, picking an arm is just a matter of play style.
Besides, I didn't say 0-8m was all. I said 0-8m is the most important range in a MAX rush.

The most important statistic of NC AI arms is 0.0s TTK. This is always the point of contention:
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...ll-instagib-and-should-be-nerfed-more.111892/

Since all NC AI arms can have 0.0s TTK, they are all superior CQC weapons. All other stats such as magazine size and spread are just player preferences. Therefore, the spread between KPH performance of the different NC AI arms is only a few %.

Trying to make assumptions off 2-3% variation is rather meaningless, because it falls within the margin of error as proven below:

Then there are the 2 arguments made on page 1&2 that are the meat of this thread.

#1 by Goldmonk

#2 by me

Both of these now stand unchallenged. We can continue discussing the tangential topics you've created, but I just wanted to bring closure to the topic posted by OP.

Given that you have agreed above that the Scattercannon does in fact you out perform the Grinder you've basically completely undermined your own “delta defence”. As either the Grinder does outperform the SC or you're completely wrong about my statement! So one way or the other you must be incorrect!

However the more cogent point would be what is causing this:
Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99

And what is causing such a BIG difference between SC Left and Right arms when none of the other NC AI MAX weapons show anything like such a big difference?

There must be something else if as you claim it is NOT that the SC Left is a Default weapon, I cannot think of anything other than it being the default weapon that is causing such a difference and neither can you........ therefore it must be it being a default weapon.

Wrong? As we can see this is what you claimed! I completely disagree though, Mercys rip thing up at 30m (Onslaughts still work well at 30m) and still kill pretty effectively out to ~60m.
I still think this was where we first say your 2:1 range estimate problem, you say 30m when you mean 60m (or 8m when you mean 16m).

You're insulted you are NOT my wife or mother? I can't do much about you being my mother, but I suppose we could get married in a polygamous country if you really want to be my 2nd wife!

Then by that definition this is concrete proof.

KPH
Orion| KPH | Daily Average: 27.10
CARV| KPH | Daily Average: 22.92
NC6 SAW | KPH | Daily Average: 21.18

Q4 aKPH
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 44.57
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 42.10
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 36.51

KPH to Q4aKPH difference:
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 17.47
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 19.18
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 15.33

All wrong? Er.... no.


Pounder kills? 89% are AI – correct – easily determined from the statistics.

Pounder AOE? Best of all AV MAXs and capable of killing just with AOE hits – correct (it is very small as I said, but enough for a near miss) – you're claiming that the Pounder doesn't have the best AOE of any AV MAX? And that it cannot kill an infantryman with AOE? Again both demonstratably correct.

Pounder Drop – wrong? No this IS Pounder drop, I'd post a video but you'd just claim the video was “lying” again!

10m – aim at Head = hit Head
20m – aim at Head = hit Upper Chest (right between pectoral muscles)
30m – aim at Head = hit Groin (ouch! )
40m – aim at Head = hit Shins.
50m – aim at Head = hit Feet with AOE.

So 10m is there effectively no drop. 20m there is hardly any drop (not enough to need to reaim) 30m you start to get noticeable drop, but it takes 50m before you'd need to re-aim above the targets head to hit them and at 50m you're likely just Poundering an area like a spawn door not aiming at individual infantry!

So all correct, none of that is in fact incorrect.

Changing your criteria again!


NC DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 46.92
TR DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 45.42
VS DEFAULT MAX Q4 aKPH = 39.90
TR DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 31.09
VS DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 28.80
NC DEFAULT MAX aKPH = 26.64

If anything what you're saying is artificially inflating NC AI MAX numbers in this context, because SC/SC would have a higher Q4a KPH.... so basically you suspect that the Default TR MAX may be 1st in Q4a KPH as well!
I agree that is a possibility, and 1st and 1st would definitely NOT be “the worst default MAX combo”!

Again your range estimation is completely INCORRECT, if you aim for the head of an infantryman you hit:
10m – aim at Head = hit Head
20m – aim at Head = hit Upper Chest (right between pectoral muscles)
30m – aim at Head = hit Groin (ouch! )
40m – aim at Head = hit Shins.
50m – aim at Head = hit Feet with AOE.

If you're aiming for center-mass you would still hit the person you are aiming at until 30-40m, at just 20m you'd be hitting them just above the groin (phew!) IF you aimed at center-mass.

Pretty sure that's the same with practically all weapons! Again this is why we assume (or state) equal accuracy!

0-50m, if you'd hit on a flat surface you'd hit on a raised surface with the same aim point on the target.

Again this tends to be the case with all weapons, if they are behind cover you “miss”! I can just see someone blazing away at a wall cursing it for “lying” and not letting them hit the person behind it!
The bonus with arcing weapons is you can loop them over cover, you cannot with direct fire weapons.

I'm saying that the Default TR MAX is the best performing in aKPH, and the 2nd best in Q4 aKPH...... as you have suggested though it is actually probably the best performing in Q4 aKPH if you account for any SC/SC bias.
So clearly it is not “the worst default MAX combo”, as we agree is is likely 1st and 1st!

Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm:
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99


I can explain it easily, it is because it is the Default weapon, there is NO other explanation. I cannot think of another explanation, you clearly cannot think of another explanation, so therefore it is the ONLY explanation we can think of!

Please provide concrete proof of this “the above statement is backed by no proof. It is an opinion.

You are making baseless arguments and getting called out on it”!

How can we conclude anything if we don't know which data was Grinder/Grinder, Grinder/Mattock, SC/Grinder, Onslaught/Pounder etc.?

Back-pedalling? I stand behind what I said 100% and here IS why:

Quatin: If your aim is off by a small margin, you miss.

Because it clearly needs to be said things are for equal accuracy!
Otherwise you clearly start comparing weapons on the context of “perfect accuracy” and “aim being off by a small margin”!

Admittedly I'd probably have added "assuming the same level of cover" as well now that you've started applying "cover" to one weapon and not others!

Both videos DO clearly show the range of MAX Crash engagements and clearly show most of it is in the 8-30m range with almost none of it being in the 0-8m range, the video aren't “lying”, they cannot “lie”.

This is clearly and demonstrably untrue.
This isn't me saying this, this is all TR Players saying this:
Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


Going by TTK (if TTK was all as you claim) it would be:
Onslaught>HC/Mutilator>Mercy

Yet clearly this is NOT how TR players use TR AI MAX weapons.

Also the TR use the Mutilator and Mercy much more than the NC use any AI MAX weapon, but the default Left Scattercannon.
Again showing that 0.0s TTK is limited by other factors and that NC AI MAXs are more niche.



This isn't me claiming this, this is the TR players showing you what actually happens with AI MAXs in game, as I said you can argue with them if you want and rage at them telling them they are all “lying” about how they play...... but I doubt it will change how they play!

How do you separate aKPH statistics that are Grinder/Mattock or Mattock/Grinder or SC/Grinder or Grinder/SC or Hacksaw/Grinder (or Grinder/Falcon or Grinder/flak cannon etc.)


Are you honestly saying that you believeeverything you have said above is completely baseless/invalid?

Insults just show you have no valid counter-arguments!

So there's 2 sections to this post that we need to break down.

Section #1:
I don't agree with you.

The delta in the numbers are so small, that it could be within the margin of error. The rankings change month to month. Lastly, you can't even explain the anomalies in the statistics that you quote.
Quatin
It also doesn't matter, because any way you look at it, the 2 arm average delta is minimal. So minimal that making the following claim is preposterous:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder,

The % delta is so small that month to month variation changes the rankings.

“As we've seen the Q4 aKPH for both arms is:

Mattock: 37.94

SC: 35.12

Grinder: 34.06”

“Q4 aKPH for the month of January:

Mattock: 39.78

Grinder: 36.33

SC: 36.10”

This is a fact. Making assumptions based off data that can very well be in the margin of error is asinine.

Section #2:
Why does scatters have different values for left and right arm?

The fact that you can't explain why being a default weapon causes a delta between the 2 arms is further proof that you are making assumptions based off of statistical variation or not accounting for all the factors. Just because they are default weapons is not an actual explanation as to why the they are different, it is only an observation.

So, before we continue down more tangents on why scatters have different values for left and right arm. Let me ask the question. (I will reserve the answers for some of the quotes below until you answer)

Why should I care?

My original point of contention is Section #1. How does the difference between left/right arm for Scattercannon relate to the fact that you made assumptions based off a 1% delta on statistical data, which I proved above has a month to month variation of 1%?

Pending response.

If we take that approach then the original argument you made to start this quote train is invalidated:
Goretzu
Scattercannons out perform Grinders in Q4 aKPH, but that is because they are better at 8m+ than Grinder

Identify where I compared a weapon based off "perfect accuracy" and then to "aim being off by a small margin", before post #182. Which is where this sub-topic started when I called you out on making equal accuracy a caveat.

Note, we've gone over what a rhetorical question is. Read the entire post, I'm not asking you if "we're assuming equal accuracy". It is a challenge.

Here's the quote from #182:
Quatin
Issue = Caveat.
We're assuming equal accuracy? Describe the context in this discussion where unequal accuracy could possibly be a logical assumption.

Both videos are of the Biolab. Are you claiming the Biolab to be the full representation of PS2?
If so, the only point I saw was 18s in on C point. It took him all of 1.2s to cover the entire room of C point with his visual bubble. Proof that NC MAX can dominate the majority of point buildings.

There are 2 arguments:

1) No TR AI weapon has 0.0s TTK.

NC AI arms operate under the concept of high alpha damage or pretty much killing. You would therefore use the weapon that gives you the most range while retaining as much killing power. Since all NC AI arms have the 0.0s TTK, players would gravitate to the Mattocks with the longest range.

All TR AI guns operate under the concept of sustained DPS. The lowest delta to NC arms is 0.36s, which is the difference between the worst pistol and the best CQC carbine and therefore trying to play the high alpha damage role with a TR arm would be playing to its weakness. Therefore, most players gravitate to Mercies.

2) You are not accounting for all variables within weapon selection. For example:

Since you claim most MAX game play is 8m+ why do NC players prefer the closest range weapons?

Hacksaw-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 132.39
Hacksaw-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 151.32
Grinder-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 108.11
Grinder-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 144.50
Mattock-Left | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 64.45
Mattock-Right | Playtime(hours) | Daily Average: 70.91

Since the rest of the discussion has been about paired AI weapons, I would consider the effect of combo weapons to be minimal on KPH as most players would gravitate to paired AI weapons asap. We can also go back and redact all left arm scatter/heavy cycler/quasar data and only use the right arm. I believe all arguments stand even with that change.

However, you are attempting to create combo data from the average. You would need to separate out the combo statistics from the average.

As we can see what now have a choice of why your “calculation” is wrong:


Choice 1) – because using it shows that a Blitz SMG and a Longshot Sniper Rifle have a 75% shared killing range.


Choice 2) – because you have made NO accounting for Q4 aKPH for Grinder/Mattock, Grinder/SC, Grinder/Hacksaw, Grinder/Falcon, Grinder/Flak Cannon..... and Mattock/Grinder, Mattock/SC, Mattock/Hacksaw, Mattock/Falcon, Mattock/Flak Cannon within your “calculation”.
Which according to your very own words renders your “calculation” “complete rubbish”!




Now personally I think 1) is the reason why it is completely wrong (as with a very large data set the other issues would average out), however YOU clearly think it is wrong for reason 2)


I don't think I've ever come across someone saying their own argument is wrong before.

I have explained this (about 10 times now ); it is because it is the default weapon.

Difference in Q4 aKPH between Left and Right arm
Mattock = 2.18
SC = 6.05
Grinder = 0.45
Hacksaw = 0.99

That is the only explanation you or I can come up with for such a large difference only between Scattercannon-left and Scattercannon-right.
As you have said you have no other explanation for the difference either, therefore that is the only cogent explanation we have.

KPH
Orion| KPH | Daily Average: 27.10
CARV| KPH | Daily Average: 22.92
NC6 SAW | KPH | Daily Average: 21.18

Q4 aKPH
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 44.57
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 42.10
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 36.51

KPH to Q4aKPH difference:
Orion | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 17.47
CARV | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 19.18
NC6 SAW | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 15.33 [/qupte]


All you have to do is provide concrete proof like this.

All correct and waiting response.

The only response is to admit the Default TR MAX is certainly NOT “the worst default MAX combo” and is arguably “the best default MAX combo”!

If any weapons aim is off you will miss, if any target is behind cover they will remain behind cover, this won't change with time!

If we take the point of view that for ANY MAX aKPH we have to account for all weapon1/weapon2 combination, we have to account for ALL MAX armour combinations (Flak1-5, NW 1-5, Nantite 1-5), extented Mags (or not)..... and for any Infantry aKPH we have to account for armour slot (NW 1-5, Flak 1-5, grenade belt etc.) any Shield type and level (NWG/Ad/Resist for HA, AoE regen or shield regen for Medic, Nanoweave cloak for Inf) as well as any weapon addons HVA/SVA, foregrips, extended mags, lasers.................... basically EVERYTHING in this entire thread (and indeed most things on the forum) are meaningless!


Personally I think it is an incorrect point of view, but it is the one you seem to think is “correct”.

Here:

Then you started claiming cover only affected some weapons:

Pretty straightforward. I definitely need to explicitly state “assuming equal accuracy and assuming equal cover” from now on!

Wrong? As we can see this is what you claimed! I completely disagree though, Mercys rip thing up at 30m (Onslaughts still work well at 30m) and still kill pretty effectively out to ~60m.
I still think this was where we first say your 2:1 range estimate problem, you say 30m when you mean 60m (or 8m when you mean 16m) as what you say makes sense if you are underestimating by 2:1.

Biolabs are the closest over all fighting in PS2 and the room sizes are pretty much standard, if you're talking about other large bases and smaller base then in that case Tech Plants and Amp Stations capture points are massively open with engagement ranges of anything up to 50+m and almost nothing in the 0-8m. And many smaller base capture points are outside, those that aren't are usually in nothing smaller than a Biolabs tightest rooms.
So as we can see from:

&

Very little combat occurs in the 0-8m range even in a MAX Crash, as the latter video shows very clearly even a NC AI MAX would routinely (and almost entirely) be engaging at 8-30m.

Changing your criteria!

Indeed this is quite interesting, because not only that, but NC players prefer the WORST PERFORMING NC AI WEAPONS!!!!






Q4 aKPH of Left and Right:
Mattock 38.7
SC 35.5
Grinder 35.0
Hacksaw 29.9


Which is strange to say the least!
As the TTK is the same for better performing weapons in the 0-8m, and they have better, damage per shot, better damage per mag, and better % firing/% reloading times.


So why is this?

The lowest TTK a TR AI MAX can get is 0.13 seconds (head-shotting in the 0-8m range with an Onslaught is pretty easy also TR AI MAXs hold their TTKs out to 10m (NC AI MAX TTKs are dropping on average by 8m and plummet past 8m).


Average hours used:
Heavy Cycler-Left 427.4
Mutilator-Right 275.6
Mutilator-Left 233.3
Mercy-Right 186.1
Mercy-Left 167.9
Onslaught-Right 53.1
Onslaught-Left 50.1
Heavy Cycler-Right 30.6


Going by TTK (if TTK was all as you claim) it would be:
Onslaught>HC/Mutilator>Mercy


M6 Onslaught-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 29.92
Mercy-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 27.90
M2 Mutilator-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 26.57
M1 Heavy Cycler-Left | Q4 KPH | Daily Average: 26.48


Shows that TR player also don't prefer the best performing AI MAX weapons, but rather in this case ones with good fire rate large (or almost endless mags) and accuracy rather than TTK.

Changing your criteria AND adding caveats!

You cannot use the “you have not accounted for XYZ” argument one second and then claim “XYZ now does not now matter in this context” the next as that is what some may call “hypocrisy”.

My point of view is that in such large data sets such things tend to average out across the players and the faction.
Your point of view is that you have to account for things like Grinder/SC which basically renders all your own arguments “invalid” (by your OWN words).

NC AI-MAXes needs a buff? Srsly?
Hell, they even don't need to switch to AV weapons against enemy MAX, they just go straight to the VS/TR MAX, bang bang with their shotguns, dance on enemy MAX corpse and move away to kill some next target.

Offtopic: By the way guys, before I managed to read the end of these weapon statistic posts, each post is so long that I actually forgot what was at the post beginning. I'm just curious, how long it takes to write a post of this length with all these quotes and statistics and whatever? A hour or maybe two?

You have to be really close like 5-8m to be able to drop an enemy max unit using hacksaws, anything past that gets tickled. Try using NC AI maxes for once. And plus planetside battles are not all 1v1 85% of the time.

I would rather be able to hose an entire room down AND its immediate base surroundings and still have enough bullets to write my name on the wall, THAN hold down a room ONLY, get c4'd, grenade spammed, rocket spammed, etc.etc.etc, while only having 10 rounds each arm ( hacksaw ) and killing only 2-3 people then reloading for 4 long seconds. As if to say those 2-3 people i have killed weren't heavies then if they were, i'd be able to kill only 2 heavies because everyone runs heavies most of the time.

Only a fool will run up to an NC shotgun max up close, then complain why he got " instagibbed", well duh its a shotgun. It's all about fire suppression, the amount of lead poured down range from max units will cower the infantry soldier into the corner, especially if that max unit can reload quickly after running out of ammo. NC maxes cannot provide fire suppression outside rooms, not to mention they are the fattest of all maxes and easier to hit with rockets. Be realistic

As I'm oft to do these kinds of stat crunches in Vehicle threads: about thirty-minutes, if you know your subject well enough, know how to peruse the API-diving sites efficiently, and can do a lot of mental math. I tend to show my work but that just means a lot of typing (generally, copy-pasting the previous line and changing it to reflect the incremental math).

I don't think I can blame you. I made a post earlier about the extreme length of replies in this thread, yet I keep opening it up, never learning my lesson from the last time. I've long since lost the ability to keep track of a single sub-topic chain since it requires dancing across the whole of the conversation looking for each next fragment.

Sooo... that means I'm not the only one. Good to know

The problem is that AI maxes are designed for CQB, so realistically NC maxes being able to run it and wreck a room and duck out and repeat is really powerful compared to Vanu and TR maxes which have a longer TTK and thus don;t get so many kills per "attack".

I also agree with the sentiment that vanu AI has too much range but then I haven't played them myself to truly assess them and only have my experience on the recieving end to go off of.