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

...How can people seriously believe the Orion is worse at CQC than the Carv? The Orion has better hip CoF, a .75x movement ADS modifier as opposed to .5x, one of the fastest reload times among LMG's, lower vertical AND horizontal <=> recoil, a RoF equal to that of the Carv with the same damage per round to boot... Literally all the Carv has is magazine size, and even THAT is offset by having the third longest reload time amongst LMG's, right behind the SAW and the Carv -S. The Orion even performs better over the same distances than the Carv because of the lower recoils.

At least the NC have SOME merit in saying the SAW is bad in CQC, because both the Carv and SAW are pretty ****ing terrible at hip fire. They have the exact same hip-CoF in fact.

The VS players praising the Carv and downplaying the Orion are actually an embarrassment to their own empire.

As for the LMG I'd want if I could only ever have one? Orion or Anchor, and I'm leaning Anchor. I'd like the MSW-R, but it neither has a superior ammo capacity to the other two, .75x movement speed, nor the fastest reload, and it by far has the worst accuracy. All it has is a lower vertical recoil. Whoopdie. F***in'. Doo. It is, bar non, the weakest of the three officially "ES CQC" LMGs.

Yay charts.

GD-22S is pretty much the long range cousin to the Anchor. I couldn't find a way to exclude it from the list.

Mind you, it is kind of dumbfounding the Orion doesn't have access to an advanced laser, though I guess that might be why it has a .75x movement modifier? Only explanation I can think of. The other points however...

The SAW S has less damage and a smaller mag, but it does have a faster RoF and reload. It actually does better at close range than the SAW and is more versatile in general.

but true, this thread seems to be about numbers and not about actually using the guns. I have purples medals for almost all of the NC LMGs and I have to say, none of them seem bad but rather they have certain roles they are best at.

I do recall when the nerfs were made to carv when everyone stoped using it. Some of those nerfs should certainly be undone at this point. Maybe it'd encourage more players to go to TR.

I think it's to promote some further distinction from the MSW-R. The Orion gets the ADS move modifier, but the MSW can go advanced laser.

Just one objection.

While it's true that the Recoil will be smaller because of the lesser RoF.
The SAW have a recoil per bullet so big that at long ranges, where it "should" shine, you don't have the right of using "bursts" you only shot one bullet because the second will move up and completely miss the enemy.
At medium range you need to AIM in their legs so the second bullet can hit the enemy.
And at close range RoF> Damage.

While the others weapons you can use burst of 3 bullets at medium/long range. And win in close because of the Higher RoF.

SAW is pretty much a joke. Has big damage? yes. But in actual combat ANY other weapon outperform it.

Math is cool when you are looking at the paper. in the actual game things are WAY different.

Recoil doesn't even matter that much up close. But yeah except for the mag size, which DOES matter a lot btw (I'd rather have 50 extra bullets than a fast reload any day. It's like having 1 free instant reload over the Orion) the Orion is definitely not statistically worse.

The CARV is superior to the SAW at CQC because it's hip fire is better. Yes your crosshair is wide like ours, but your ROF and Bloom are better. So the Carv is not terrible at hip fire, just not as good as the Orion.

There is also one other downside that the CARV has that no one has mentioned yet, a slower switch to time. Meaning if you are firing rockets at a tank and the driver decides to hop out and attack you it will take longer to pull out the CARV than if you had some other weapon equipped.

If you like the CARV then pick up the MSW which is a flat out upgrade in every way except magazine size.

Speaking of magazine size why does everyone say how great the CARV magazine yet no one seems to mention it with the SAW? The SAW has the exact same number of rounds but those rounds hit harder giving it significantly greater damage potential without reloading.

I think why we are seeing so many complaints lately is several things. The NC has the greatest variety of weapons, they have slow RoF High Damage weapons but they also have a High RoF Low Damage weapons as well. The VS and TR both have High RoF and Low Damage but they don't have any weapons that do 200 damage while the NC actually has a couple of weapons that have faster RoF than what the TR has (and don't give me that average crap either). Second, the NC used to be regarded better at range but less effective up close due to flinch mechanics (even if they were using a gun that was identical with the exception of damage and RoF). This has been changed and with the addition of shotguns and SMGs become the go to weapons for CQC. This makes the NC equal up close but now superior at range.

Yeah, this is about all I can figure. ADS at .75x is still more accurate than a laser pointer, but a laser pointer moves faster than ADS. The Orion and Anchor have the MSW-R beat out overall though. If the MSW-R had at least 60 or 64 rounds (come on SOE, give me a unique numbers!) it could justifiably be preferable depending on whom you ask. The Anchor is bloody accurate over even longer distances however. Less horizontal than both the Orion and the MSW-R, equal vertical to the Orion, lower RPM (equates to more manageable recoils) and it can equip an advanced laser too, making it equal at hip fire to the Orion, but worse than the MSW-R.

Now here's the part where I do a 180 and suggest an intelligent argument AGAINST the TR, because frankly, idiots think the intangible variable of human interaction is actually a statistic worth considering in weapons balance.

There is something I will give the VS/NC, and I really hate to suggest this but... if SOE's intention was to set TR weapon stats to such a point where attachments made them go from worse in an area to good or even slightly better (if onloy because of extra ammo or in general higher RoF,) they accomplished this to some degree. If I'm correct, a fore grip is -.025/-.05 recoil, and a laser is -.5/-1 CoF spread, depending on attachment rank.

I will admit that a .025 recoil decrease is a world of difference, especially for the higher RPM weapons with already wild recoils, especially of the <=> variety. This would mean a T9 Carv with a foregrip is on par with a stock Orion in terms of accuracy, but has 50 more rounds.

A laser pointer is, frankly, still worthless but we are talking on average 10-15m engagement distances for hip fire. 2.5 stand - 3.5 move CoF is okay up to 10-15m at 750 RPM and 100 rounds to blow, it's not like ammo only walks the outer rim of the CoF after all. There are still way better options - like an SMG, if not a shotgun, or the three before mentioned LMG's. The MSW-R is practically a CQC variant of the Carv (or if you prefer, bigger version of the Trac 5,) and for 100 certs (if I recall,) absolutely affordable by everyone at least. It still has .225 horizontal to the Anchor's .175. Work in 750 RPM, and that .225 is amplified considerably.

If nothing else, the Carv could stand to at least get a bloody 2x reflex sight.

Statistically, the bloom is nearly the same just holding the trigger. But yes, our wall of lead is thicker than the SAW's. If I had to bring one to a CQC situation, I'd begrudgingly opt for the Carv, though I might just shoot myself with it and deny the enemy some exp.

9 rounds x .14 = 1.26 + 4 = 5.26
13 rounds x .1 = 1.3 + 4 = 5.3

After roughly one second of fire (definitely not hitting anything with either gun at this point though.)

I see the legendary OrangeSoda has made an appearance. Back from the dead?

OK, there's been a lot of posts and there's simply too many for me to try respond to them specifically, so I'm going to try make another post to cover as much as I can.

Somebody mentioned a contradiction in my post about the cone of fire and standing still. That is true, there is a contradiction, and allow me to rectify that. Standing still Cone of Fire is a factor. Standing still in open fields will get you killed almost immediately, due to snipers. However, standing still in places like Amp Stations and Tech Plants to engage people at longer ranges isn't as much of a risk, due to having more cover. At the time of typing that segment about the CARV an Orion, I had long range open fields specifically in mind, and momentarily forgot about other areas of engagement.

People bring up the TMG-50 as the more accurate comparison to the Gauss SAW - not the Orion or CARV. This is 100% true. However, the TMG-50 is an Alpha Squad/700SC/500 cert weapon. If in order to stay competitive with the SAW, the TR have to purchase another weapon, I see a fundamental issue.

The TMG-50 is like a Gauss SAW S with less attachments. I'm going to go off on an aside about the SAW S for a moment, as people are questioning my statement that it's a terrible weapon, as it does pertain to the TMG-50.

It's pretty terrible. The point of S weapons is to offer a weapon with similar flavour but a wider variety of attachments. Purely because of the huge variety of attachments available to the Gauss SAW, it makes the SAW S entirely irrelevant. While having access to Extended Magazines and a Flash Suppressor may seem big for some, it doesn't really add much to the weapon. To add to that, the SAW S rate of fire is barely higher than that of the Gauss SAW, which makes any sort of close quarters benefits it may have had(In the form of hipfire) pretty much useless. It's also got larger standing cone of fire(Traded off with a slightly lower bloom). In short, the SAW S isn't a competitive weapon in the NC arsenal. That is what makes it bad.

Now, what does this have to do with the TMG-50. It takes a TMG-50 6 bullets to kill, 7 at common engagement ranges. The SAW takes 5, 6 at common engagement ranges. The sad thing is, the TMG-50 does not have the rate of fire to put out that 1 bullet faster than a SAW. Assuming no latency, if you have a SAW user and a TMG-50 user stand 10 meters apart and shoot eachother, the SAW will win.

The TMG-50 and Gauss SAW S have near identical stats. So, in short, the TMG-50 compared to the SAW has less damage output, less attachments(No advanced fore grip, adding this would fix much of the problem), arguably worse cone of fire, arguably better bloom(The bloom rate is overall higher on the TMG-50 over sustained fire), a smaller magazine(So less potential damage) and more recoil(As a result of rate of fire). On paper, mathematically, the TMG-50 is a straight up worse weapon. Yes, our Alpha Squad, 500 Cert/700SC weapon, dubbed by many TR has the "best" TR LMG, is worse than the starter NC one. What can I even say to that. And this conclusion based on statistics transfers rather well into the game, too.

I don't know why some scoff at numbers, maths, and statistics. They fail to realize - maths is what is used to design weapons, maths is what is used to nerf weapons, maths is what is used to buff weapons, maths is an integral part of
game design and game balance. It is not something to be brushed off because you "feel" it does not transfer well into the game. Feeling is subjective, numbers are fact.

Somebody brought up that the T9 CARV, over a period of two weeks, had a higher KDR as opposed to the Gauss SAW(I think it was higher by 0.04 iirc) and asked for an explanation. I cannot explain. I can however point to a statistic that the SAW has more kills/hr as opposed to the CARV(Though this does come with more deaths/hr). Any explanation I can offer you though is pure conjecture, I don't have access to the player statistics that SOE does.
I can also point to the sad reality that the NC holds 36% of the current population, and 35.5% of new characters made are NC - with 29.9% of new characters being made as TR. I don't know what you think, but I don't believe the 4th faction switches so they can grind up an expensive weapon.

There is a very real problem with balance concerning the Terran Republic at the moment, and that fundamentally lies with our poor weapon design and confused weapon philosophy. People may think I posted this thread as a giant "Let's attack the Gauss SAW, that stuff is overpowered!" - not so. I am, however, determined to raise awareness of the exasperating balance issues plaguing the TR, and that starts with the CARV. People can claim bias, but I'm using statistics pulled from the game. I've tried to outline the bonuses of the CARV(Hint; There are very few) and, to be quite honest, if I wanted to, I couldn't find a way to make the CARV look worse than the numbers already show.

Terran LMGs are, simply put, not competitive. The example I gave in the OP is simply one such pairing - the easiest one to discuss as they are all the beginner weapons. The MSW-R is struggling to be competitive with the Orion and Anchor, the CARV-S is flat out inferior the the CARV(It's called the CARV-Sh*t for a reason), the T16 is an inferior Ursa, the TMG-50 is an inferior EM6 and is a Gauss SAW S with less attachments, and it can't even begin to compete with the Gauss SAW. The T32 Bull is the closest thing the TR have to an all round weapon that works transitionally, but transitional weapons are simply overall ineffective as a result of things like the Gauss SAW and things like Shotguns.

I don't use the Orion, I opt for the SV-88. Can't comment.

Carv vs SAW. Situational for me. I'll win with a SAW for mid-long range and win with a Carv in short range.

As for the SAW being the best LMG in the game? Disagree - but again, situational. EM6 easily trumps the SAW IMO. More rounded weapon. Still kills long range better than the Carv or TMG-50 and less crappier in CQC comparative to how little the SAW is better in long range. I'd even put the EM6 better at mid range due to higher accuracy and manageability of the weapon.

By math one Vanguard's shoot kill ESF in the game, by math it SHOULD be a good AA right? But guess what? it i'snt.


Math is nothing without taking in account the situation, vanguard can't hit up and need to compensate the speed/probably change of path of the ESF to kill it.

Math is cool in the paper. IN THE PAPER.

If you have a weapon that do 167 of damage at long range but it's recoil is so big that you can't shoot 2 bullets at once and hit the target, while you have other that do 125 but you can shoot and hit 3 bullets because of the recoil, guess who wins?

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

-Albert Einstein.

I'm just gonna throw this out here. Stop comparing the TMG-50 to the Gauss Saw. They're in two very different categories as far as all the stats are concerned.

Compare the TMG-50 to the EM6. Why? Because the EM6 and the TMG-50 are extremely close statistically, except that the EM6 has a bigger magazine/ammo reserve and a higher RoF at basically no cost other than recoil decrease, I think? Why does the NC have a LMG that accentuates TR's faction advantages more than TR does? What is the justification of this ********?

They only scoff numbers when they don't suit their agenda .. Like those who will use one set of stat's as " proof " while ignoring another set of stat's as " meaningless "

There is no Faction advantage in TR... cause both NC and VS have options with our striking features... but we dont have a single weapon with 200 dam per bullet. I dont want weapons with 200 dam, i want my faction of choice with clearly advantages and disadvantages, just like the NC... not this confused ********.

Just keep in mind that the game was BUILD AROUND ROF> EVERYTHING.
Proof? remember the flinch problem? yes it's "fixed" but the game still allows players to compensate recoil of RoF and others things.
The game was designer around RoF, if a faction get the "advantage" of RoF this faction will have advantage over everything else.

They are, trying, fixing this bad design but for now i have to say: give the Jaguar RoF of 850 while having bigger magazine and it will be "fair".

The thing with the Gauss is the inital accuracy which matters.

I cant get my head around the TR. Our first shot fires our gun off massively and then semi settles down the CoFs massively. It appears that we are meant to 'burst fire'? Were as the NC Gauss has initial accuracy and then it goes of. But if those first 3 hits land on you your down by 600 damage! Thats insane considering the marginally reduced rate of fire.

Im at a loss at the moment and slowly going off this game. VS got buffed and seem to be the flavour of the month so heres hoping they 'cycle' the faction buffing so we all take it in turns.

Ok. Take a SAW in the VS and try to hit a busrt of 2, don't need to be 3, at a target in at least 100 meters.

https://players.planetside2.com/#!/5428010618041267217/weapons

First of all i would like to see your NC file (Hisenburg) and secondly you have some pretty solid points but thats in the statistics department you don't really seem to know how the SAW feels yet because if you did you wouldn't be saying its the best.
Im no pushover when it comes to HA on HA and i have to tell you that the Orion and T9 CARV are in no way an inferior weapon to the NC6. 9/10 you will lose at CQC (9/10 you will be in CQC anyway) against them especially the T9 which will destroy you if the player is decent. At medium ranges i'd say the T9 falls off but the Orion is still a match with its super freaky accuracy, its not as easy as burst firing with the NC6 SAW as people think when you are getting hit by what seems to be every laser beam of the Orion. I know from experience that the T9 and Orion will beat the NC6 at CQC and even at long range the NC6 gauss saw isn't worth it i mean how often do you have long range battles in CQCSIDE 2 what with the Biolabs and amp station and tech plants these are all meant for CQC.

Overall the orion and the T9 win because of how CQC oriented this game is, how rare is the occasional skirmish out on the barren fields of Indar.

My best advice is to get the EM6 you can't go wrong with 167 damage, 600 RPM and a 100 ammo drum put some soft point ammo and you're good to go and its only 250-500 certs and its better than the anchor and EM1

good read... especially helpful to myself that has very limited HA experience. but a couple things stood out to me.

you compare the orion to the carv while stating that standing still is bad at long range...

but compare the carv and saw and drawing the conclusion that the saw is better because it has better accuracy while standing still. while also stating the carv cannot bloom to the same cof as the saw within its magazine capacity, then state the saw has poor close quarters performance.

overall none of this affects me, but i wanted to point out that this doesnt look very objective. the data is presented and weighted differently to support a conclusion as opposed to the conclusion being drawn from the supporting data. which causes it to be a bit confusing.

The initial accuracy seems great until you start to realize that you still loose because you need more than 3 shots to kill.