Would you complain about the human-like alien with superhuman strength (and heat ray vision) (and x-ray vision) (and enhanced hearing) (I'll stop now) when exposed to Sol's light? or would rather complain the structural integrity of a perfectly reasonable pyramid that was never designed to withstand being manhandled or accelerated in the way depicted?
Just a few corrections: The formula for recoil is linear with the extra mass and velocity you put in, but the formula for kinetic energy the projectile holds has a linear mass but exponential velocity. This means that if you have the same kinetic energy as an AK47 but a lighter round, you still deal the same damage but have a lower recoil. It also means you can carry more ammo. If the recoil really did break your arm while firing a large projectile you could blow through a full modern day MBT side-armor. All Guns have the potential to OHK, but they also have the potential to hit a target more than 70 times and not kill him/her. Also in gunfights between police and criminals often the criminals are mortally wounded but will fight for 15 minutes or more before collapsing due to the adrenalin rush they experience. Also if PS2 was realistic they would have monomolecular armors made from abundant materials like Carbon. That would mean Graphene Alloys, and assuming mid-range flexible Graphene of about 50x as strong as steel (it goes up to 300x) and stiff Graphene of about 5x as strong as steel (the lowest number I've seen for Graphene) and you used 2mm of the flexible stuff as skin and 1cm of the stiff stuff as an exoskeleton beneath the skin you would be at 200mm RHS armor on a naked planetman, which is about as much as a T62 tank had. Add some armored clothing of similar properties and it approaches the current M1 abrahams tank. This actually would explain why a planetman can take a tankshell and still have a body intact enough to be revived. Oh and since you can build complex things in seconds with nanites, you can use cheaper simpler nanites to deconstruct things, like a tank with a "puny" rocketlauncher.
Good response! And educational. P.s. Devs nerfed flak armor against direct hits of tank shells on PTS.
considering we're constructed of nanites and not flesh and bone your arguement holds ZERO merrit. also the planes are VTOL and do not use aerodynamics to remain aloft...
They use some kind of magic to stay aloft as they are able to generate thrust in directions in which they have no thrusters. Flying backwards or hovering upside down.
I preffered the old shotgun, the shotgun of the release period, really strong. I can live with the gimped version we have now... tbh there is no real reason to use one... too weak... but it's actually fun... so .. I think I'm ok with the current state.
http://iridar.net/planetside2/weapons/shotguns/ Basically, the center point for the pellet spread is in fact affected by hipfire accuracy. Therefore, the laser sight does have a benefit, though not much. Extended mags are pretty much always the better choice, as you can just ADS if you need that extra bit of accuracy.
The claim is that laser sights does NOT reduce hipfire accuracy, therefore the laser sight does NOT have a benefit. This is also shown in the images. Trust what you see, not what you're told. Only with slug ammunition does the hipfire cone of fire / accuracy / crosshairs visibly narrow when equipping a laser sight.
Scenario A: The game isn't 100% polished and the laser sight's bonus isn't being reflected in the reticle. Scenario B: The community member known for thoroughly dissecting the game mechanics for the sake of knowledge, is wrong about the laser sight providing any benefit to non-slug shotguns despite pulling data from the API and providing diagrams. Which do you think is more likely? I mean, I totally get it if you don't just take someone's word for it. Thinking for yourself is good. But I guess the contention comes from how hard it is to prove this either way since the bonus, if real, is so small. At the end of the day, extended mags are often the better choice so it's whatevs.
The scenarios you present are not mutually exclusive and both can be true at the same time. The community member you are referring to also claims that the laser sight gives a 33% reduction. This is wrong, it is a 25% reduction for regular laser sights. Furthermore the diagrams illustrating the cone of fire / pellet spread mechanics are grossly exaggerated and unlike anything I've experienced from playing the game. The wild, speculative assumption that both cone of fire and pellet spread are measured in degrees, with pellet spread being 3x the size of cone of fire, implies that every shotgun pellet has a considerable chance of landing outside the crosshairs. This does not occur during regular gameplay. What I believe is that the game was made under a budget, with the code for reticle size being the same for most weapons and dependent on the actual accuracy of a weapon. When shotguns where programmed, someone figured out that the usual mechanics didn't make sense for non-slug hipfire and therefore bypassed it and used pellet spread directly instead for actual accuracy. This is likely, as for example the Claw has a pellet spread of 3, and the Bruiser a pellet spread of 3.5, and the reticle of the Claw is slightly smaller visually than that of the Bruiser, despite the fact that both guns have the same accuracy stats. In a similar vein, under a budget, the laser sight code was just duplicated, being the same for all weapons and therefore not working on shotguns.
In game descriptions have been changed. Previously they mentioned a 33% reduction in Cone of Fire, but since it was not very obvious to less technically-minded people, the description was replaced with a 25% increase in accuracy. Behind the scenes Laser Sight still reduces CoF by 33%, just like it always did. Lol you're basing this on wild, speculative assumption that crosshair size is directly equal to CoF size. Which it isn't. Nowadays shotgun crosshair size scales with both current CoF and Pellet Spread. I could probably find patchnotes confirming that. Shotguns HAVE Cone of Fire, which is self evident if you shoot a wall with an auto shotgun, especially if you start firing after a jump to maximize your CoF. What you'll get is pellets clearly landing in groups. Maximum distance between pellets in each group is defined by Pellet Spread. What Laser Sight does is reduce the maximum distance between centers of these groups. I completely agree that it's a worthless attachment, because its effect is so small, but it's there, no doubt about it. There's nothing mechanically wrong with it, it does exactly what it's supposed to.
Yeah it might be right, but in anycase I think it is a bit misleading to describe the laser sight as giving increased accuracy when in fact the effect is negligible if even existent. I would expect a 25% reduction in the total pellet coverage area as that is the area I play towards when using a shotgun. Otherwise one is too reliant on RNG in hipfire which doesen't pay off, especially using slugs.
Ah yes, I fondly look back upon the those documentary videos I used to watch as a child that detailed how the Soviet Army of the second World War had the capability of defending from an orbital laser. I'm sorry, but that comment from you was just stupid. Anyways, on the matter of shotguns... I do find them terribly underpowered for what they do, except perhaps pump-actions. Personally, I liked how Battlefield 3/4 balanced their shotguns. They weren't very effective outside of 50 meters, sometimes even less than that, but they sure were remarkably powerful in their given range. Planetside 2 shotguns aren't. Even the NC Max shotguns are kind-of a joke except for the Mattock.
If you are going to quote me, then please read what I bloody said. I specifically added this to make it even more clear and to avoid having to have this exact conversation, but I guess the best intentions are futile in the face of people who just read up to a point where they think they can make themselves look clever and ignore the rest. However, since you brought it up: Based on its slow charge-up time, low lethality, and short range it can easily be argued that orbital strikes could be no more than an inconvenience to any mechanized force. We were throwing around conventional bombs with greater destructive power than an OS has in this game, and doing it far more frequently.
Yes, obviously they'd have a chance against plasma weapons, tanks equipped with railguns and each with the ability to self-repair within seconds, not to mention the numerous soldiers with advanced shields, self-healing technology and virtually unlimited ammuntion. Upgrade brain. And you're derailing the topic.
In his defense, planetmans die in two swipes/paper cuts from a knife, OHKd by any sort of bolt-action sniper and can be shot down mercilessly by tanks and air to ground. Definitely weapons no-one had a shortage of during that time period. While technologically superior, if we account the population of both the Soviet Union and Planetmans, Soviets win out decisively with 150 million population, with probably around 40 million manpower. Compared to... 4000 or less planetmans that are actively in the game? The zerging would be horrible. But I'm derailing the topic, so back to the point. Realism to a limit. It may increase immersion the more it resembles reality, but if you look at the core mechanics Planetside 2 is very "game-y", as in you have everyone trying to cap a control console instead of getting hackers to do it from thousands of kilometers like smart people, floating maglev tanks, ESFs that can do a 180 degree turn almost instantly, nanites that can literally do everything according to lore, knives that can OHK but bullets to the face cannot, 50mm cannons doing 200 damage while an antique revolver does 450, rocket launchers not destroying a person in one shot, tank shells not destroying a person in one shot, I can count for days. Lots of stuff wouldn't be as fun if it were realistic, and some really frustrating game mechanics would get introduced the more realistic the game got. Point being, realism isn't fun. If you wanted to simulate realistic warfare, it would be taking pot-shots at each other and sitting all day in a tank/base with maybe a minor skirmish or two each day. Maybe a major battle lasting days or weeks once in a while, but mostly nothing special. If you were 100% realistic about the whole conflict... the Terran Republic would faceroll over both the New Conglomerate and Vanu Sovereignty. No joke, according to the lore during the first few battles of the conflict (where there was no respawning!), TR had a field day with the NC, going as far in one particular instance where only a handful (supposedly elite) Republican Guards died while killing hundreds upon hundreds of NC regulars, who all permanently died by the way. Vanu was in the conflict at least 30 years later, more than enough time for TR to pacify the rebellious population of the NC-held industrial complexes and then defeat a few rogue scientists and cultists. TR has more numbers and far superior training compared to both of it's enemies with good enough technology of it's own, since it began developing and finishing their weaponry at the start of the 29th century (wondered what most of the numbers on your empire specific infantry weapons meant? It's the date when they entered service (TRAC-5, 2805), with obvious exceptions like NS-44, NS-357, NS-11, NS-15 etc.). If this game was 100% realistic, it would also be horribly unfair and heavily biased towards the Terran Republic.
