Why does DBG allows NC's terrible low win rate?

I watched NC lose a large fight yesterday (48+ players on each side) for a major facility during primetime with a 2:1 pop advantage.
That is not an exaggeration. It was 64-36 in NC's favor (and not just at the end; for at least 5 minutes before the fight was over.)
Something is indeed terribly wrong.

I also stayed online for 3 continent locks. Of course, none of them (nor the two previous when I logged on) were won by NC. In fact, since CAI, I've only had the privilege of being online during one NC win.
Several times players from the winning factions posted "Yay! Galaxy fins!" or "Yay! Implant pack!" or the like.
Me, I got ~75 Iso-4. Total.
Yay NC.

This thread has already provided evidence that NC's:

• ES Weaponary is inferior
• Armor and camouflage is inferior
• Player skill is equal

What you are proposing, that it is the leadership which is inferior, is still left to prove yes and an open question. I would suggest to not measure it subjectively by say "the command chat people are stupid childs", but there is a more objective way of measuring it. As the game gives ribbons to players for leading, the "Squad Leadership", "Platoon Leadership", and other related ribbons, counting the amount of these ribbons awarded to players on the different factions/servers can provide metrics as to the quality and quantity of leadership. At least on http://ps2.fisu.pw it is possible to see individual characters amount of earned ribbons, and comparing a metric like "Amount of awarded Squad Leadership ribbons per player" across the different factions and servers would be convincing on the issue. Still just getting that measure does not seem easy as I can only retrieve the amount for specified characters. It would probably require interacting with the API which the stat-collecting websites are using, if there is none that have it already.

Edit:
However there is a collection of the Top 50 players on the ribbons, which would comprise planetside 2's greatest leaders. Of the 50 best platoon leaders, 15 are with NC, 22 with TR, and 13 with VS, so it seems that NC does not have the worst leadership, its VS which has that. Emerald (which you referred to) alone has 2 of NC's greatest platoon leaders, and 3 of TR's and 0 of VS's.

As for squad leadership, 16 of the 50 greatest are NC, 24 are TR, and 10 are VS.

So overall, of the "greatest leaders" it seems like VS has the least

Ryderian, it is time for you to choose SCIENCE. Do not fail with the Capitalist pigs or Commies.... Besides, our outfits are stretchy and comfy. And LAZERS. And Ninja swords!!!

Just blame the Gauss Saw. This entire thread is just a pointless plea falling on deaf ears. Without actual evidence that the guns are causing the trouble and not just bad players, nobody really cares, especially DBG.

And it has 100% not been provided. Just ramblings of forum "regulars" that pretty equals jack ****.

*****************

Guys, I'm 90% sure Rock's a troll. He's literally ignored everything proving him wrong in this 15 page thread, and keeps spamming the same obviously-wrong message about the Gauss SAW, when about 5 posts have explained to him why the entire NC arsenal is bad, not just the SAW. Even an idiot would probably have started listening at this point.. Just ignore him and he'll stop posting.

Problem: NC is now and has been since launch, the statistically worst performing faction.

Your proposed explanation: Bad leadership. NC has bad leadership now, and always has had bad leadership on all servers that span many countries and demographics since November 20th, 2012. NC is unable to attract good leaders. You yourself don't even want to play NC.

So far the proposed solution from many has been: "just pull youself up by the bootstraps and win" and in 5 years that has never happened, players have tried to fix it and haven't so far, so clearly that's not an option anymore. It's not going to fix itself, the devs need to step in regardless of the cause.

Logical conclusion: If NC can't attract good leaders, and hasn't in 5 years, then making NC more competitive will attract them. Also, if the weapons are cumulatively inferior, then making NC more competitive will fix that too. So the obvious way forward here is:

Fix NC's weapon's, make them more fun and less frustrating RNG bs. The entire premise of NC weapons has been wrong from the start:

We will all just stipulate that I am right. It's for the best. I really can't do the "logical conclusion game anymore"... this is just bridging imaginary gaps and making wild claims.

However...

Ok so the general consensus, I guess, is that "the Orion is Gud!" (I read though everything, that is basically all that was said in a nutshell). We all knew that from day one, so its nothing new.

Can you make a gun like the Anchor as good as the Orion with out making it in to a 143/750 clone while at the same time making sure that it does not just become better than the Orion? What do you think the stats have to become to do that? More hip fire accuracy? just a faster fire rate?

If you just gave the Gauss Saw higher accuracy the gun would be broken, anybody that could even half aim would just destroy people if there was no chance to miss with 200 damage bullets.

Nice, so you insult everyone and then in the same post say: let's have a civilized discussion now, very classy.

If the Anchor was to be made into a more competitive close combat LMG, it needs to have comparable DPS, the problem is it's a 167dmg gun, so the concern is it might become too good at both close and medium range. So yeah, the easy answer is make it a 143/750 gun, the tough answer is, and I'm no gaming engineer so lots might have to be tweaked, increase the rpm to 642 giving it almost exactly the same DPS as the 143/750, then the hard part is playing with either recoil, velocity, and/or damage falloff to not make it OP. You might also have to reduce the magazine from 50 to 40.

143/750 = 1787.5 DPS
167/642 = 1786.9 DPS

This is if we want to keep the Anchor as the close combat king for NC. I still think the default NC LMG needs to be changed to something easier to use, so that could be a 143/750, or it could also be a 167/642 with larger magazine and worse hipfire (like the carv versus the MSW-R relationship)

Seriously. The Irony.
You claim NC's entire issue is inferior players & leadership, for every single problem in the face of the entire game's length, NC's been on the *** end, for the issue of weapons, proven by deduction & supporting data, NC's weaponry isn't as capable, NC's skill with Non-ES weaponry matching or superior to the same weaponry used by the TR & VS, that NC's ES abilities are generally defensive in nature, with plentiful RNG rather than any practical capability in their Max weapons, for the ES sidearms, for their ES heavy weapons.

Take a squad of NC, you can be the god-incarnate in leadership, you can not make a Squad whose weapons due to NC's arsenal be suited to only select environments in which this same squad's other weapons will be crippled, be equal to a TR or VS squad whom can fight on equal footing regardless of the environment.
How? Heavy weapons, Max Weapons, Infantry weapons.
NC's is a close-quarters RNG weapon, not capable of suppression fire, incapable at range, and it's nearly the same to every shotgun.
Max AI are Close-quarters RNG shotgun incapable of suppression fire, Not practical outdoors or for any distance.
NC Starter weapon; Gauss Saw, incapable in close-quarters, which is every indoor environment or base fight.
ES Launcher: Guided-Missile that can only kill an Infiltrator, and renders the user vulnerable for the entirety.

The moment NC needs to leave that building, their AI maxes, and heavy-weapons become useless.
The moment NC enters a building, their basic Heavy-Assault weapons become inferior.

For TR, entering a building makes no difference, at best it allows them to have shorter-ranges enhancing the fire-rate advantage.
For VS, this is mirrored.
For NC, entering & exiting cripples or enables, not enhances, half their arsenal.

For leading an NC squad, You basically have a harder time adapting to the battle.
VS & TR, you can lead any squad with the starter gear, let alone Maxes & heavy weapons into any fight.
They won't be crippled, upon entering a building nor impractical to be called a threat outside of one.
This makes it easier to lead VS & TR, on the basic level.

The wild claim, that every single NC for the entirety of the game, has been a poor player, been lead by inferior leaders?
How likely is this?
If even they were, if NC's players left, if their leaders left, unless they quit the game rather than move into TR & VS.
VS & TR would swell with piss-poor leadership while the NC would be left with their Best or Worst.
Yet VS & TR, are apparently either immune to Poor leadership, and from having idiots... Since only NC is afflicted?

You claim Poor leadership addresses every single NC problem, the most impractical reasoning as well.
Leadership does not mystically make RNG not brutal, Range-Impairment not fatal, nor handle ability to adapt to the battlefield on the equipment level.
You can lead perfect, RNG won't give a damn.
You can lead perfect, a severe range disadvantage across the board won't be solved, only reduced in effect.
You can lead perfect, but your equipment's environmental dependencies won't change.

None has mentioned altering any specific NC weapon, nor make the Anchor into an orion.
The changing of the Starter weapon has been suggested, to be another weapon.


The Gauss Saw, has been argued to not be the starter weapon.
Do you have any screen shots of anyone suggesting alterations to the Gauss Saw? I bloody doubt it.
What has been said, is simple; change the starter weapon to another NC LMG, not alter the Gauss Saw.
The NC starter weapon is a weapon for longer-ranged fire, that needs a skilled hand.
It is not built for close-quarters like the Carv or Orion, nor are those two guns needing the same skill.
And yet NC's rookies are handed one of the hardest LMGs to use, that is not built for the majority of fights.
While VS & TR's rookies are given weapons designed for the exact range of said fights, and not needing as much skill to handle.


If you aren't a Troll, then you are someone desperately wanting to keep their kill count & certs inflated by feeding off of NC.
NC is not there to be the "Try-hard-or-Die", fighting RNG & needing godly accuracy just to break even.
They aren't to be your morale booster, by working harder than you, just to die by you with less skill & work.
Nor are they to be the ones hated for Shotgun-splattering, as if RNG did not have to bless them to let them live.

There is evidence that NC guns are inferior: they perform worse, statistically. See for yourself at Dasanfall.com.
There is not evidence that NC players, leadership, or outfits are inherently inferior to VS and TR, as you claim.
So I don't think it makes any sense to "stipulate that you're right".

The 167/600 damage model is at least better than the 200/500 damage model. But it's pretty clear that the 143/750 model reigns supreme in this game. Perhaps due to the prevalence of close-quarters fights, perhaps due to clientside hit detection, who knows. But the stats back this claim. It does make some sense though. The 143/750 damage model beats the 167/600 and 200/500 models in DPS, TTK, headshot TTK (the Anchor matches the Orion HS TTK if and only if 3 consecutive headshots are scored at full auto within maximum damage range against an unshielded target. But since these are LMGs carried by HAs, that's basically an impossible scenario). The lower RoF also makes misses more punishing. So without a DPS, TTK, or RoF advantage, the 167/600 and 200/500 guns would need superior accuracy, or recoil, or bloom in order to make par. However, hilariously, they're actually worse in these three categories as well. They're even worse at hipfiring.

In other words, it would be quite easy to make NC's "Hard-Hitting" (lol yeah right) guns competitive. Just make one or two aspects of them superior to the 143/750 guns. Seriously, any stats will do. Increase their DPS/TTK so that the increased CoF bloom, recoil, and low RoF have an actual payoff if you can control them.
Or, if you're hell-bent on keeping NC's DPS low, then increase the accuracy, and/or reduce the CoF bloom, so that players can overcome the DPS/TTK disadvantage by landing more shots on target, similar to how the NS weapons work. The Reaper DMR and Gauss Rifle are good examples of this (unfortunately they fall into the AR and Carbine space, where the competition is stiffer)
Really, any solution that makes the 167/600 and 200/500 weapons not the same as or inferior to the 143/750 weapons in every metric will do.

I've just moved on past that point. The NC is bad I get it, everybody else gets it. You blame the guns, I blame the Players. Get over it. Having you just keep repeating yourself till your fingers fall off is not going to change facts. So that's done. (this applies to whoever was posting).


If you are going to give me better guns, why would I argue with that? That has nothing to do with my personal belief and is just a bonus, its not me agreeing with your statements at all.

with that out of the way:


I do not know the history of the choice for 167/600 (if there ever was one)... why was that chosen in the first place and why has it been held onto by the design team instead of going to 167/~642? Do they fear that 167/~642 will just be busted... or do they just not give a ****?

This thread is critical and needs to be kept alive. I don't got anything to add that hasn't been covered already. Nc """""""faction traits """""" need to be reworked into something functional. The shotgun joke got old long ago.

167/600 is a solid mid-ranged tier, don't get me wrong. The problem is infantry fights that capture bases are mostly close to medium range, the best guns 143/750 are great at close range and still good out to medium range, so you can easily fight and close the distance and get to your weapons sweet spot. 167/600 & 200/500 are mostly great at medium range but get worse as you approach the capture point.

Higher alpha damage does have perks at range, but the devs gave too many draw backs to the point there isn't much advantage. Alpha damage NEEDS high accuracy the way high ROF NEEDS large magazines. For comparison, could you imagine if TR had the same high ROF guns it has now but had small 20 round magazines, so you just burn through your ammo and are screwed? That's the equivalent of NC's "hard hitting" weapons in this game, having unwieldy recoil and bloom, so you have to fire your already slow firing weapon with lower DPS, even slower to land shots.

Second example, let's compare the Vulcan versus the Halberd, the Vulcan has a large mag to sustain it's fire, imagine how much it would suck if it didn't, and imagine if the Halberd was totally RNG inaccurate, maybe you'll hit with high damage between single shot reloads and maybe you won't. The Vulcan NEEDS a large magazine to blast out those rounds and the Halberd NEEDS to be accurate or it's useless.

NC weapons suffer from the theoretical vs practical application of damage. And weapons that are amazing in niche roles like the phoenix that get you killed in any other place besides the spawn room shields. The rng nature of shotguns makes every shot a crap-shoot.

The most NC trait pistols in the game: Commissioner, Underboss, Blackhand

Accurate + high damage + low ROF + small magazine (well, revolvers but you know what I mean)

Are NS and every faction gets them, WTF

Meanwhile NC gets a useless meme shotgun that takes 3 pumps to kill most 1000 HP unarmored enemies, a Deagle that's just a worse Underboss, and a machine pistol that's weaker than the Pilot.

Well balanced.

Although the shotgun theme is tiring, I'm actually a fan of the NC08 Mag-Scatter, its a great close combat pistol and complements a medium to longer ranged weapon really well. A great sidearm for an infiltrator either sniper or stalker. I also use it on my medic with the Carnage as primary.

The Anchor has the highest A.KPH/A.KPU/A.KDR of all non-directive/cosmetic cash only versions(dasanfall). Naturally the BG is high/tops the charts because of it being perfectly design for dat farming experience. However, the directive weapons all have a very high level of performance on account of them attained only by very experienced players.

The idea 167/600 is only great at mid range is total nonsense. The Anchor has been the favourite LMG for every competitive event in PS2(a spot it probably shared with the Orion before its ADS movement got nerfed). The EM6 might not be as great as the Anchor in CQC(since it doesn't have SPA) but it makes up for it in DPM and spray n pray ability.

I mean, you may not like the Anchor but the data speaks a lot louder and more clearly than personal preference.

What NC needs is;
1. A more rewarding cert-line journey with their vehicles and MAX. This leads to a terrible new player experience... But even if the player sticks around the player will face a longer journey in reaching the full potential of the various cert lines(MAX, ESF, Vanguard, etc etc).
A concrete example, A VS/TR MAX is fully functional after simply getting a second arm to complement their role. A NC MAX needs an arm, ex mags x 2 and, I would claim, flak at a good level to actually make it out there. Slugs is another cost.
2. A LMG, the SAW, which requires 300 certs minimum to viable/awesome is a really strange way to introduce a new player to the HA class.
3. There was also data that the average BR is higher at VS/TR which would only make this worse.

Case in point, Server Smash or Lane Smash where you have high organisation + everyone can buy everything need at MAX level. In this setting NC are highly competitive. I mean, Miller(as NC) 92-0:ed Emerald(TR) in the Server Smash finals.
On Live is the opposite, lower organisation + everyone are on the grind. Here NC suffer less success.

I never said I didn't like the Anchor, of all the NC LMGs it's my favorite, I have auraxiumed it, but as the most close combat LMG NC has to offer it doesn't fullfill it's role to the degree it should. Give me a 143/750 anyday and I'd trade it in. I'm not surprised it performs well in score stats, use the gauss saw long enough and then switch to the Anchor and the skills you learned will help a lot, but the other factions don't have to go through a rite of passage like that. The score stats don't tell us how it performs around capture points and other close combat situations, only that it is killing effectively somewhere in the game. (That's great that it's effective though)

How does the performance in high level competitions compare to what's best for the average player that makes up a faction for capturing territory?

I trust the data over your speculation and distinct NC faction bias.

As for your question, I am not sure I follow. I believe the difference I was making was that many NC cert lines take time to really reach their full potential. Since in Server Smash you have nearly unlimited certs you will always be maxed out. Indeed, the fact so many servers chose NC and the faction did so well thoroughly crushes the idea that people leave NC because of its equipment. Apparently they love the idea of NC and will actively pick it for competitive events. That leaves the faction community on the different servers...