The NC6 Gauss SAW, T9 CARV and the Orion - Replacing myth with facts

Sources; ps2.dynet.com

Disclaimer; I am thoroughly experienced with the NC and TR, and that has informed my statements. My experience with the VS, while I have some, is comparatively limited.

So, I've been playing PlanetSide 2 since mid-Beta, and I've been through all the balance changes thick and thin, and the logic many changes has, in reality, gone over my head. But I'm not here to be critical of Margaret Krohn, Joshua Sanchez and Jimmy Whisenhunt.

I'm here to discuss - initially - the discrepancies between the SAW, CARV, and Orion. I may expand upon other weapons as posters reply to the topic. It should be known that before I made any real decision, I thoroughly went through statistics(Statistics which I will be referring to in this post) and came to conclusions.

Let me begin with the easiest topic;

Many people claim that the Orion and T9 CARV are more or less identical, with the exception of VS's lack of bullet drop, and (previously) the different damage degradation rates. This is false. The Orion and CARV are substantially different weapons in their own right, and whilst they do share some similarities in the form of damage and rate of fire, ultimately they need to be considered as entirely different weapons. I'll outline the differences.

People think - or thought - the CARV and Orion had the same recoil, cone of fire, projectile speed and so on. This is solidly a false statement.

The Orion has a horizontal recoil of 0.2, this is as opposed to the T9 CARV's horizontal recoil of 0.225. Where the Orion trumps the CARV on horizontal recoil, the CARV does indeed suffer slightly less in terms of vertical recoil, with a marginally lower first shot recoil multiplier - the Orion has 2.15x and the CARV has 2x. This, however, has the trade off of the Orion having a higher level of recoil decrease - this meaning the Orion will recover from recoil faster than a CARV. This makes it more effective at burst fire.

A crucial factor that can never really be left out when we discuss the Orion and CARV, is move speed. Or rather, that the Orion has better ADS move speed as opposed to the CARV. As standard, most weapons lower your speed by 50% when you aim down the sights, this holds true with the CARV. However, with the Orion, your move speed is lowered to 75%(A reduction of 25%) when aiming down the sights. This gives the Orion an inherent advantage over the CARV in terms of ADS combat. If this wasn't enough, the Orion is also more accurate, with an ADS moving cone of fire which is 12.5% smaller than that of the CARV's. The Orion has a straight up advantage in ADS combat over the CARV, both in movement, and accuracy that compliments that move speed.

The advantages of the Orion do not end there, truth be told. With this ADS superiority, the Orion also has superior hip fire accuracy. The Orion has smaller cone of fire when hip firing on the move by a grand total of 25%. It has better standing hip fire as well, but when do we hip fire standing still?.

So, my conclusion on that is due to cone of fire, ADS movespeed and general superior accuracy levels of the Orion, the Orion is more or less superior in close quarters combat. But hey, at least the CARV recovers in longer range combat, right?

Wrong.

Ever since the removal of larger levels of damage degradation on VS weapons, what was questionable before is now statistical fact. We know, from my first paragraph, that the Orion is better at burst fire. We know that the Orion shares the same damage degradation level as the CARV, so it's know longer disadvantaged in damage. We know that when Aiming Down Sight, the Orion has a cone of fire 12.5% smaller than the CARV - while moving(They're the same when standing still. But if you're standing still in a long range engagement, it's a safe wager you're going to be sniped). This all heavily points towards the Orion being more or less superior in ranged conflict, but the icing on the cake is that the projectile velocity of the Orion is superior to that of the T9 CARV. Where the CARV's bullets travel at 600m/s, the Orion trumps that with 615m/s. Not only is bullet drop never an issue for the Orion, having to lead a moving target is easier to boot.

The only possible boon the CARV has at longer ranges, compared to the Orion, is its larger ammo magazine. Having 100 bullets as opposed to 50 in a magazine is quite beneficial when engaging at long range, it means less time reloading in a specific fight(Honestly, if you can't duke it out at long range with 100 bullets, you either can't aim or you're too far away). This is the only thing the CARV has on the Orion. And its benefits are often argued when we get into close and mid range combat - where reload speed is more often than not a more beneficial thing to have as opposed to a larger magazine. Taking into account that average player's accuracy is in the 25% region, it'll take in the region of 25-30 bullets to drop targets, on average. There'll be a point where having the ability to reload quickly becomes far better than a larger magazine, and that's usually in close-mid range combat such as tech plants and amp stations, where you have a mix of safe places to hide and a lot of people to shoot. But that's conjecture, and it should be acknowledged by all that both have their benefits and downsides.

In short, the Orion is pretty much a better version of the CARV. More accurate, more versatile, better at long ranges and also capable of hip firing in a way the CARV cannot match.

Now, on to my next point.

Why the NC6 Gauss SAW is the best LMG in the game. I think I can summarize my point in one word;

(Warning; This next segment gets quite wordy. I'll but a giant bold asterisk when I finally get to the conclusion, so you can scroll down)

Damage.

Many people don't consider the damage alone enough to justify the grand statement that the Gauss SAW is the top dog on the block. And they'd be 100% correct. The SAW has a tonne of other stuff going for it as well. Namely accuracy, potential damage and attachments.

Let me just stop your objection right there. I think when I typed "accuracy" as a benefit in reference to the Gauss SAW, I got the attention of pretty much every NC player in the game. You see, let us take a look at the stats so I can actually support that statement, instead of simply using ingame experience and anecdotes as reference.

Allow me to open up my great book of statistics. The Gauss SAW has 0.55 vertical recoil. That's more than the Orion and CARV by 20%. I will immediately make the claim vertical recoil pretty much does not matter. But let's assume it does. The Orion and CARV have a rate of fire that's 50% higher than a SAW. In layman's terms, for every 2 shots fired by the SAW, the other two fire 3.

So, we know the SAW has .5 and the CARV/Orion have .4. 2*.55 = 1.1(This is the Gauss SAW) and 3*.4 = 1.2(This is the Orion/CARV). With that maths there I've simply shown, that in the same amount of time the Gauss SAW's recoil == 1.1, the Orion and CARV's recoil == 1.2. How, you ask? This is purely due to rate of fire. While rate of fire is beneficial to raw DPS - a meaningless value in truth - it is massively detrimental to accuracy. We're looking at 3 bullets here, now look at 6. 9. 12. The total recoil gap between the SAW and CARV/Orion climbs dramatically, with the CARV/Orion in reality have ~10% more working vertical recoil than the SAW.

But as I've said, vertical recoil is irrelevant. But I had to - as the title says - replace that myth with fact. The SAW has no recoil problems, in fact it has significantly less so compared to the other two.

This is made even more apparent when we take into account horizontal recoil. I dub Horizontal Recoil pretty much as "Artificial Cone of Fire". There's a good reason for that, but it's not an entirely accurate term. For weapons such as the Pulsar LSW or the MSW-R, that term does not apply at all. That's because the horizontal recoil on those weapons is only going in one direction. With weapons like the SAW, CARV, Orion - well, in fact, most weapons in the game - it goes both left and right. While logic may dictate to you that would mean the recoil cancels out, it doesn't. All that it means is that the recoil will go from left to right over and over again. This causes a random deviation with the same effect cone of fire has.

That horizontal recoil, by the way, is the reason why so may Terran players hate using the CARV. Having the highest horizontal recoil in the game with the highest ROF LMG(And that indirectly causing extremely high cone of fire, which will be explained further down) does not make for a good level of accuracy, regardless of how you play.

Now, what is the thrust of my point? Point is, the CARV has .225 horizontal recoil, and Orion has .2 horizontal recoil, and the SAW has .175 horizontal recoil. I'm going to skip the maths here because it's pretty obvious that two weapons with a higher base recoil with higher rate of fires are going to have more horizontal recoil than a weapons with a lower base recoil and lower rate of fire. That's just common sense. Now we've surmised that the Gauss SAW, infact, has no recoil problems.


Let's address cone of fire. Compared to the CARV, the SAW's COF is absolutely identical. Infact, there are places where it is better, and there's one place where it's worse. When coming out of a sprint, the COF on the CARV is 40% higher than that on a SAW, that ultimately means that in most cases where hipfire will be occurring, the SAW will have a tighter COF - a trade off for its much lower ROF in this situation. That's fine.
The Gauss SAW has a higher bloom per shot than the CARV, by 40% in both ADS and Hip. However let's go back to our best friend ROF again. Taking into account the ROF of the CARV, the "bloom rate" is higher on the CARV - the same phenomenon as with the recoil in my earlier paragraph. With there only being a difference of 0.01 ADS and 0.02 Hip, however, it's safe to say the bloom rates are almost identical and the fact the CARV has such marginally higher bloom rate it's almost negligible. For example, it would take 10 seconds of sustained fire with the CARV for me to finally get the same cone of fire as the SAW when ADS moving. It's actually impossible because to do that I've have to fire something like 120 rounds without pause or reload. This only becomes a factor when standing still, as you will see below.

Take into account the horizontal recoil I referred to earlier, and you have an accuracy issue for the CARV. Take into account further, that the Gauss SAW has an amazing 0 cone of fire when ADS standing still, I surmised that the SAW is in general more accurate. 0 COF, in other words, means that the bullet will go exactly where you aim it, with no deviation. It's 100% accurate. The SAW also has lower first shot recoil multiplier(1.65x as opposed to the 2x on the CARV) and a higher recoil decrease than the CARV.
In layman's terms, this means the Gauss SAW is accurate enough to land 2 headshots in a row without effort(Possibly even 3 if the person is good enough to compensate for recoil while tracking the target[Not too difficult]) - about 800 damage.

*

The burst damage capability of the SAW is unparalleled amongst all the LMGs in the game. Where burst damage is the most important factor, the SAW comes out king. While I may have been obscure or abstract in my explanation, the general thrust of the point I'm trying to make here is that the SAW does not suffer accuracy issues. When we stack it up against comparable weapons such as the Flare, Ursa, and TMG-50, it suffers no more in accuracy than these, with only a marginally slower ROF. However, it comes up king because of its 200 damage per shot. If my little statistical-orgasm I've had throughout this post still leaves you in doubt that I have referred to stats when making that statement, go look at them yourself.

This problem is exacerbated due to the attachments available to the SAW. The SAW stands as the only starter weapon in the game which has access to advanced attachments such as Compensators and Adv. Foregrips. In addition to this, it has access to a much larger variety of Optics - from being the only starter LMG with 2x, to having a variety of 3.4x and 4x - and even 6x. The SAW is given the answer to all of its potential problems in the form of attachments - the only thing it can't do well is hip fire, which only the Orion can efficiently do.

The point being made ultimately here, is that the SAW is the best LMG. It has everything. Attachments. Damage. Accuracy. A large magazine size. The only thing it doesn't have is ROF - and that would be detrimental to accuracy. The SAW lacks raw dps - the only edge weapons like the Orion and CARV have on it - but raw dps is only a factor assuming 100% accuracy. I've surmised through the stats that the SAW is the more accurate LMG.

Many people are going to look at this post and see that I compared the Orion, CARV, and SAW. A fair argument to refute what I've said is that the SAW is a different weapon style to the other two in its own right, and therefore cannot be compared. I would agree, but these three are the starter weapons. If I have to buy a weapon to compare to the SAW and compete with it, there's clearly an issue.

While the SAW does not match up in extremely close quarters(Where the Orion will be marginally better), it is superior at almost every other level. Corridors in Bio Labs, fighting inside the walls of an Amp Station, fighting around and inside a Tech Plant, out in the open around outposts and satellites, in fields - these are the SAW's playground. The only time they do not dominate is a tower battle, where the Orion is simply better out of the three(But in reality, shotguns amirite?).

In short, the SAW is not underpowered or "bad" as players often claim. It has quite a lot of advantages over the other 2 LMGs, falling short only in cone of fire vs. the Orion and projectile velocity vs. the Orion. In order to compete with the SAW, TR and VS players have to buy their 167 damage LMGs. Personally, I find that completely unacceptable. The Terran Republic's best LMG(TMG-50) is the equivalent of NC's worst(Gauss SAW S). While the VS have more options with two 167 damage LMGs, neither of those two stack up to the SAW, with the Flare being a slightly worse version of the TMG-50 and the Ursa being stuck between a SAW and a T16 Rhino.

These statements are supported by stats pulled from the game.

God this post was longer than I expected it to be...

Great post but good luck getting the forumside warriors to agree. Still have some players saying NC have the worst weapons lol.

SAW: 200 (Damage)/ .55 (Recoil) = 363.36 Damage/RecoilUnit
Orion/Carv: 143/ .4 = 357.5 D/RU

However the saw has a lower first shot multiplier.

I agree with your over all point. Guns in this game are pretty well balanced between factions. However I still think certain categories of guns (PA Shotties, 2nd SMGs) need some adjustments.

I have a CARV I never use anymore. Anybody want to trade it for a SAW? It comes with a foregrip, 1x reflex and 3.4x red dot.

If the TR had a weapon as good as the SAW at medium and long range while being worse then the SAW in CQC i would be using that on my TR instead of the TMG-50 even if the over all weapon was worse then the SAW. So long as it's good as the SAW at the ranges where you don't use a shotgun then it would be good enough for me. I think that's all TR is looking for. Balance....

The Orion is better than the CARV, that's certainly true now that the CARV got indirectly nerfed many moons ago. Prior to the nerfs the CARV was amazing when I used it - I simply fired the 100 round off in nearly 1 burst and walked the bullets onto successive heads. I recall getting 5 kills with 1 burst once. The SAW needs firing in very short bursts or you'll find yourself practically knocked over by the recoil.

I'd say the Orion and Gauss SAW are about equal overall due to the ADS move speed on the Orion: the ADAD strafers with Orions (or their other 75% ADS LMG) will mince someone trying to keep a Gauss SAW targetted on them. The Orion is also very easy to control even stock.

Anyway while these 3 are the default weapons you are not really comparing like-for-like, I think which weapons were default and which occupied the 100 and 250 Cert slots was almost random. NC and VS got lucky with good defaults (though it's important to note you really DO have to spend 330 Certs on the Gauss SAW to make it useable; it's an uncontrollable monster in stock form. Those bonus attachments are really a Cert-Tax you have to pay to tame the beast).

The Gauss SAW equivalent in performance/use terms is the TMG-50.

The Guass SAW is not even the best NC LMG: many NC who've really put some time and testing into it consider the EM6 to be the best NC LMG because it's simply more versatile and controllable than the Gauss SAW.

The SAW is far better at medium and long range then the TMG-50. The TMG-50 is just the best of the worst. That's the only reason TR use it. If we had a SAW we would be using that instead for them ranges. That's a fact.

Not sure how you can really notice a difference between 600 and 615 meters per second between the Carv and Orion.

The Gauss SAW S is far from the worst LMG.

0 cone of fire only applies to single tapping while standing still. Earlier you say this gets you sniped. At the end you call this an advantage for the SAW.

You mention reload a bit. You neglect to mention the SAW reload time as being absurdedly long. Granted this is minor.

Bursting is generally done by bullet not length of time. Two and three round bursts the SAW is less controllable (medium to long range) vertically. You cannot say vertical recoil is ignorable as you have to react to it and it does effect the first few shoots until you can compensate for it. It is easier to compensate for smaller per bullet recoil as long as you do not spray and pray. After three bullets you need to account for 2.0075 vs 1.6 total vertical recoil.

Just a few discrepancies I noted. The attachment choices is certainly a big advantage for the SAW once you know what you are doing. The horizontal recoil is I feel the SAW main advantage.

Excellent post. Need more like this.

got a lot of good points here, but maybe you should compare the the more used guns?

Very good explanation.

After the flinch nerf/fix, the Carv deserves to be un-nerfed, it seems like after the flinch nerf/fix the Carv and SAW basically switched places, SAW is now godlike and Carv is now widely considered horrible because of the erratic recoil pattern.

I don't think it's necessary to write a 14579 letter essay on something so obvious as CARV being the weakest stock LMG these days.

Anyone who doesn't understand that already, is not worth the time it takes to type 14579 letters.

Long post and you've obviously spent quite some time on it; but what exactly are you trying to say here? The GuassSaw is only comparable to the other two you mention once it's been upgraded with around 250 to 300 Certs spent on it. Out of the box it is the most difficult to use of the three. The other two do not need to have the advanced attachments to be effective weapons.

Thanks for the well thought out post, but you are a little biased and some of your math is wrong.

The Gauss SAW does not have 0 CoF standing for the first shot, your testing should have cleared up that myth rather quickly. So go ahead and edit that entire paragraph.

In the same way people can't stop crying over ScatterMaxes because of how effective they are in close quarters, the CARV is the same in regards to LMGs. At the ranges that most fighting takes place, the CARV is a much better weapon than the Gauss. Now, a high-skilled player working over longer distances will probably get much more out of the Gauss

Could you also add a TL;DR version?, this one is very detailed but im just to lazy to read through all this :3

I'd agree that the SAW is the one of the better, if not the best, LMGs. I use one completely stock on my NC acc, and it wrecks people at medium-to-long range. Cons I have noticed are the long long-reload time and the NC iron sights, which are inferior to the TR iron sights (though TR muzzle flash makes it difficult to use them).

The TMG-50 is like the SAW's little brother and that is why many TR players use it.

Now, I do not have a problem with the NC having the strongest LMG. Faction differences and strengths/weaknesses make this game interesting (e.g. TR have arguably the best CQC carbines thanks to their larger mags, VS have no-bullet drop combined with now equal damage degradation giving them an edge in long range infantry combat). Individual weapon, vehicle, or class balance are all inconsequential if the three factions are balanced overall in terms of power. I started playing this game for the massive battles and unique empires. I do not want to see Planetside 2 devolve into a battle between three indentical factions with no recognizable strengths/weaknesses and the same weapons, equipment, vehicles, etc.

Couple of issues that I think needs to be addrssed.

1. Recoil is manageable, CoF is random and out of your control. In other words I can compensate for recoil as I know what to expect, CoF is beyond my control. The Orion is predictable, as so is the SAW with difference being the SAW required more compensation. The Carv however is a serious pain in the *** due to the randomness of CoF.

2. Attachments, optics, and option to customize your weapon. VS & TR LMGs do not get the options available to them as the NC so. Case in point is the advanced fore grip. On both the Flare & TMG-50, which are considered the long range gun for the VS and TR, this is not available. As matter of fact for the VS the advanced fore grip is only available for the pulsar C. This issue needs to be looked at and corrected.

You can make 300 certs in a evening. Cert investment isn't a factor but if you want to make it one ill bite.

It costs 500 certs to get a TMG-50. Then add 300 certs to fully kit it out for medium to long range combat while still lacking a advanced foregrip.(we can't buy it) That's 700 certs for a weapon that's still worse then the SAW.

I would trade all TR LMG's for the SAW. The rest of the time ill grab a shotgun.