I have said all along if you learn to use the weapons to their strengths they are remarkably balanced. You can see the numbers of HA are nearly identical and the argument that NC weapons are op can be left at the door. As other posters have said we need to focus on getting the truly up weapons fixed such as the Battle rifle. Those of us with experience need to start busting up these ridiculous X gun is op threads. There is no truth to it learn the gun learn to play that is all.
The original post and this thread is not about nerfing anything. The entire reason for the post was simply to point out that NC LMGs have better attachment options than TR and that I'd like to see all attachments made available for each class of weapon. The reason I brought up the SAW was simply because it has access to the AFG but the TMG-50, the TR equivalent, does not have the same options for attachments. This allows the SAW to work better at close ranges due to better managed recoil. The T16 was another example as it has no access to soft point ammo or a compensator but it's supposed to be a close range weapon when compared to the TMG, however the Anchor does have access to attachments which make it better suited for in close work. I will admit I probably worded the title poorly and could have done a better job of explaining. Oh and the reason I don't talk about VS weapons is I rarely fight the VS so I don't have any weapon which sticks out as killing me as often.
These stats are fundamentally useless, because they're measuring things that just aren't particularly relevant to...well...anything. Let's ignore vehicle weapons for the moment because this is an LMG discussion. So... Kills per hour and score per hour are both measuring, essentially, damage done relative to the time that someone has the weapon in their hands. That means you need to maximize the return while it's out and minimize the time spent having it out without doing anything. So you need single-shot weapons then, ideally single-shot weapons that can kill vehicles since those cough up so many points. Oh look, mines and rocket launchers are at the top of the chart. Okay, let's ignore those as outliers. Next up, you need to maximize the chances that good players are using the weapon. That means you need a locked weapon; anything the newbies have access to is going to be dragged down by them being useless. You also need a specialized weapon; anything general-purpose will be dragged down by all the time spent moving between locations, because even good players have to move places, so you need something that only gets pulled out in certain scenarios, but is -really- good at those scenarios. Something like a MAX weapon...oh look, those are next on the chart. Well, let's ignore those. Okay, so what other weapons are locked away from newbies, specialized to a very narrow niche and unlikely to be selected for general open field combat....sounds a lot like close-range spewguns. And, oh hey, look at that, next up on the chart, we have a broad collection of close-range spewguns, shotguns and the locked pistols. In other words, that chart exactly shows what you'd expect simply due to the poor metric selection, and can't be extrapolated to anything else at all. I mean, seriously, nobody's going to humor the idea the Rebel is a more effective weapon than the Titan-150 HEAT. A more interesting metric that I've been looking at lately is the Damage Taken charts at Planetside-Intel. I've been poking about the stats of random high BR characters on Connery, and so far I've only seen exactly one TR/VS character that doesn't have the Gauss SAW as their #1 damage taken source. That one exception was someone who was almost exclusively vehicles, and the Shrike was #1 (go figure, they must not be very -good- at vehicles). The SAW is usually #1 by a hefty margin. It's doing a lot of the heavy lifting out there.
Lol ya so those stats are meaningless but the cherry picked stat you choose is very telling amirite? http://planetside-intel.com/character.php?id=5428044677952152049&view=damage-taken Wow will you look at that the Carv is my #1 damage taken weapon proves it is doing alot of heavy lifting as you said amirite. Please take note that this toon was rolled well after the Carv nerf. Very surprising right. I mean who would've thought that the DEFAULT weapons would be ranking 4 out of the top 5 spots. Shocking.
Yeah. All those numbers show is the average efficiency in terms of score/kills over time. They're skewed by a lot of things. As the poster above me outlined, weapons with a very high alpha ability tend to score highest, also weapons which are used situationally but can gain a large amount of score during that window of use. If you pull out your rocket launcher only to fire at tanks and sundies, you're going to end up with a very high score/hour with it. Same with C4, tank mines, etc. All yield a lot of score relative to the time actually wielded. It's more useful when comparing weapons within the same category. Comparing LMG's amongst themselves, for example. But you really need to be careful with this. Consider a few factors. To start with, numbers for default weaponry are going to be skewed downward, relative to their actual balance level. Why? Because there are a large number of casual or inexperienced players who will pick these weapons up and experience difficulties, especially since some of these weapons are not newbie-friendly. Many less-experienced players will be killed by a combination of poor fire discipline and high reload time with the SAW, for example. While very accurate once modded and used properly, it is quite inaccurate if used stock without the proper firing patterns. By comparison, when players start buying weapons of their own choice, it's usually because that weapon fits their playstyle, and they've typically got a bit of experience by then, as well. So voluntarily-used weapons will seem relatively more effective. In addition, it's hard to trust the numbers on Alpha Squad weapons. Some of them will be skewed upward relative to their actual balance level. Why? The majority of players who own these weapons, and have experience with them, are very experienced players. However, some less experienced alpha squad players simply switch all their primaries to their alpha squad weapons because it's an "upgrade," ignoring the proper (sometimes niche) usages of these alternate weapons. I wish we had better metrics available. Something like damage dealt per player-hour using that weapon. Or what the breakdown is of total damage dealt (like what % of total LMG damage is the Orion, etc.). Let me take a stab at answering your question, though. In my personal opinion, "best" can no longer really be applied to the same degree as before. To start with, the conventional wisdom regarding infantry weapons is evaporating. Quite simply, RoF is _no longer king_. It's still an important factor, but only one of many to consider. Flinch mechanics have changed dramatically since that idea was formulated. In addition, the proliferation of explosives, MAX's, and high-capability launchers (ESRL's, decis, vanilla lock-ons) has dramatically reduced the role of both vehicles and vehicle zerging. The everpresence of vehicle zergs is what made most infantry engagements close-up before. If there was enough open space around you for a medium range infantry engagement, it used to be that you simply got blown up by ESF's or tanks. That's not true anymore, as the herd has been dramatically thinned, so to speak. Within the last few weeks, really, the variety of ranges at which infantry has to fight has expanded dramatically. It's now a common occurrence for infantry to engage in either medium or long range, and these factors must be considered. This introduces new metafactors to consider, like a weapon's overall recoil and CoF profile over 1k likely damage. This means that many more weapons than before have become good choices. This is also why some of the best-performing weapons nowadays don't actually have great TTK. Rather, they're weapons which have a reasonable mix of lowish (but not necessarily best-in-class) TTK and a fair degree of controllability at range. Of course, this also skews the data even further. Many more experienced players are starting to accumulate a suite of diverse weapons. On my combat medic, for example, I have both the CME and HV-45, both with the mods that I want for them. These are, respectively, the best VS Assault Rifle for long-range engagements and the best CQB AR for VS. Both can be equally good at their role, but one will naturally yield a much higher score. If I pull out the Viper for biolab battles, you can imagine that both the target-richness of these intense close-quarters fights and the overall higher rate of player attrition in these battles will give me a much higher score per hour than a protracted string of battles at smaller bases using the CME, even if both work equally well.
Quite. The interesting bit isn't that default guns are in the lead, but that the -same- default gun is always consistently in the lead by a significant margin. You'd expect it to be in the lead, since HA is the most played class and NC is the most populated faction, but the margin of advantage on the Gauss SAW's damage dealt is larger than those can adequately explain by themselves. It's large enough blip to be notable. Another curiosity I've noticed is echoed in your stats there; the TMG-50 is almost always the #1 non-default gun, even among people that spend a decent amount of time in close range like you apparently do. It's an Alpha Squad gun, so it's pseudo-default, but still...interesting. Kinda puts an asterisk on the common sentiment that long-range guns don't have a significant role to play.
Well considering the amount of certs it takes to make the SAW work anybody that uses it is going to do so for more time. 230 certs minimum if you want to use it to Auraxium. You guys can sit here and try to pick the statistics apart its not hard they are numbers they cant fight back. Thing is when you look at the class comparisons and the total numbers played for each faction it is clear to see that is is more or less balanced with the NC bringing up the rear as per usual. These numbers pulled aren't biased everybody's score gets counted up the same way . Every single time some finds a different way to try and invalidate them. Are they perfect ? NO. But do they consistently say the same thing? YES they do. Also you can look at the Long range Lmg doing alot of damage but if you want to see something really shocking look how quickly the Pumpshotties rocketed up the damage charts. Which tells you that short range do just as much if not more damage.
A bit off-topic, but this is the same situation we had with VS LMGs, so it's roughly equivalent. Long range was a big hole in the VS AR set, but when the Corvus was been added, it just crushed everything else. It is far and away the best VS automatic for ranged work. Not just the best AR - the best everything. It's got the 167 damage, the .03 COF, and it has a phenomenally amazing horizontal recoil, the lowest of any automatic in the game bar the scout rifles, and even the vertical recoil is median. It puts out shockingly tight groupings to crazy ranges.
Eh. I've looked at its groupings a lot. I don't think it's really the best. It's the most accurate 167 VS weapon, yeah. But I'd honestly take the CME or Polaris over it for ranged engagements. There are other things to consider. The CME only has 0.2 vert, and the Polaris 0.3, so the Corvus doesn't beat them there. And their horizontal recoils are 0.225 and 0.2, respectively. There's one thing I think a lot of people aren't picking up on for recoil. The degree range is very important. Closer to 0 isn't necessarily helpful. What you really want is for the min and max to be as close as possible. The less variability you have in horizontal recoil, the closer the weapon's centerpoint throughout a grouping is to a straight line, which means the easier it is to manually compensate for recoil. Most weapons are either 3, 5, or 7. The weapons with a 3 degree recoil range recoil (talking centerpoint, excluding CoF bloom) in very close to a straight line (albeit not straight up), which is what the Polaris has at 17/20. The 5's aren't great, but if you have a weapon with 5 which also has an advanced foregrip, like the CME at 15/20, it's not really as noticeable. Honestly, I find it easier to compensate for that kind of recoil than I do the back-and-forth randomness of "straight-up" recoil, since that quickly turns into a lot of random left-right microadjustments. Over an entire grouping, that kind of recoil eventually evens out, but if you're trying to consistently put every round on target over a burst with constant compensations for this randomness, it's annoying.
You -always- have the back and forth randomness of horizontal recoil. Having an angled vertical recoil just masks it by increasing the horizontal component; the underlying randomness is still there and can't be removed. Angled vertical recoil even makes the horizontal randomness -worse-, because its angle has randomness too and thus its horizontal contribution changes between shots. It's not a good thing for reliability.
What you are saying is true, when looking at facts. I'm just speaking of my own perception, however biased or silly that may be. I guess I should clarify. "Straight-up" weapons aren't necessarily significantly better, as a weapon with a sufficiently narrow range of angled horizontal recoil is nearly just as easy to control. You just have to train yourself to "pull down" at a different angle. I personally find those kinds of weapons easier to control. Is there some logical reason for that? Maybe, or perhaps it's simply an irrational bias. I'm not 100% sure on how the recoil angles work. I do know the Polaris will always pull to the right, though by varying amounts, though the range seems rather small. Perhaps that's the important difference for my aiming? Maybe I can adjust how much I'm pulling left to varying degrees easier than I can switch to making left-right adjustments on the fly for "straight-up" recoil. I did try to test this quite a bit when I returned to the game. I used each weapon quite a bit in the range, firing hundreds of rounds in a few different ways. I tried to get pinpoint groupings at close range. I tried to reach full accuracy at medium range (near 100% hit rate on targets at the back of the firing range). And I tried to maintain full accuracy with moving ADS in close-medium range. Obviously, that's not a perfect reflection of combat, but I just wanted a feel for how each weapon handled to me. The Polaris, CME, and Solstice SF ended up coming out on top for me. When I compared them to their hard-hitting 0/0 recoil counterparts, the Pulsar C, Corvus, and Flare/Ursa, I found them consistently easier to use at range. It kinda makes sense, as they're all similar, basic "medium-range" weapons (652 RoF, 143 damage, can take comp and foregrip). I'm not the only one who prefers weapons like this. Not exactly sure why people like them, exactly. Part of it is probably the ability to compensate by only pulling down and left, just to varying degrees. Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature. The best way I have to describe it is like a reflexive "floating" motion that you get used to, to keep the crosshairs on target. Second, I just might be used to the particular mix of vertical and horizontal recoil these weapons offer. The Corvus, Flare/Ursa, and Pulsar C have about 50% more vertical per shot and 30-40% more vertical recoil over time, which I personally find quite bothersome. Maybe I'm just more comfortable dealing with a lesser amount of vertical recoil and more horizontal recoil at range.
I played NC, then switched to TR when I was disappointed with the organizations on NC, and while I am still playing TR primarily do switch back to NC. Without being a big number cruncher I can say the Standard SAW has been my favorite machine gun - but it's not unbalanced by any means. Absolute butts in close quarters, really just a medium to long distance gun. And it may be my preference for hard hitting over ROF - why after going from CARV-S to Minigun to MSW-R I finally settled on and trust in the most NC like LMG for the Terrans - the TMG50. And as others have said I found the SCAR to be terrible until I invested all the certs necessary. I do wonder why the CARV-S got nerfed to hell, I remember it being much more useful in the past. And as a whimsical notion I liked the idea of giving the TR back an MG42 kind of beast of a machine gun. Let it have the worst movement while ADS and horrible hipfire. But in exchange give it a blurring fast rate of fire (perhaps the best of handheld weaponry) with a decent CoF and damage. Thus it would demand the TR HA be relatively stationary and more suppressive fire than up close and personal with the Minigun and whatnot.
Well I suggest getting the NS-15M, Its one of the closes thing we TR are going to get to the NC LMGs, besides the TMG-50 which is pretty decent.
I won't claim to know why others choose this recoil, but I like it because it doesn't pull the aim off of the enemy as often. There are very few instances where high vertical recoil helps me stay on a target. On the other hand, horizontal recoil almost helps me when the enemy is moving the same direction. I notice it on the GD-7F. Guys moving right-to-left require very little aim adjustment, since it's high rate of fire burns through the clip so quickly.
One reason is that the left to right chatter is not pronounced because if the vertical recoil is taking it right then the random chatter is already accounted for when RNG takes it to the right.
Agreed super helpful. I love how Vanu carbines get awful damage per clip and equal/worse ttk compared to the other two all for no bullet drop (like that helps carbines much).
