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

Already stated the TMG-50 is a weaker less accurate version of the SAW.

Let's be blunt. TR got screwed in terms of LMG's. NC can try talk their way around it all they want. Having LMG's that are slightly better up close isn't a advantage when everyone uses shotguns for CQC. Having LMG's that are the best at range is an advantage. SAW amd the EM among others are far better at range then the TMG-50. The TMG is just the best of the worst. The carv is crap.

LMG's, Rifles and other weapons are only used for RANGED combat. At ranges where cone of fire means crap and less sideways recoil, recoil reducing attachments and accuracy are the best stats.

The T9 is the better weapon @ CQC within 30m, the SAW is better past that but most of the fighting is done in between 30m between infantry.

The T9 is actually my favorite weapon over any of the NC LMG's within that 30m, if you go head to head with a saw you will win unless poor shooting, the ROF means its far more deadly within that 30m.

Some of the stats in the original post are also incorrect, so the myth being solves here is false.

You can also add that the TR HA has higher stats than the NC, and if you take into account most players are using the stock weapon (Saw & T9) then you also see the trend of the T9 being more effective and useful, because the battles that happen within that 30m the T9 is much more useful.

I hate to say it but I really do feel TR are just trying to get a buff on the T9 here when there is nothing wrong with it compared to other factions default HA weapons, it's a deadly weapon and does not need changing.

as far as defaults go, i guess so. SAW is the best at long range, orion is best at mid-close, and CARV is i guess supposed to be the middle ground but doesn't do anything particularly well.

if you actually take all the other 13 or so LMGs into account it doesn't really make as much sense anymore. yeah it's better than the tmg-50, and the orion is probably better than the MSW-R. i guess TR had to have one catagory of class specific non-mirrored weapons that weren't outright the best.

Also:

how do people keep making this blatantly obvious mistake? that is out to 10m, once you cross the line to 11m it drops below 200 damage and therefore works off the 6 shots to kill tier rather than 5. if you're seriously suggesting people should be ADSing with the SAW on ADADAD warpers then i don't think you've played the game very recently.

I am with you on a lot of points, but I think you are down playing the benefit of a large magazine in the case of Orion vs CARV.

To a certain extent and in a lot of circumstances, RoF and damage output are less important. I don't know about anyone else, but when make a kill I generally take very little damage. When I die I generally inflict very little damage. The times where I just barely survive, or he just barely survives are few and far between. If you really like the characteristics of the Orion, then you should consider the NS-15M.

Also all TR Light Assault, Engineer, and Medic have access to an Orion Light.

The OP definitely proved the accuracy of the old proverb: "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess".

This part is especially hilarious:

In other words: standing still ADS is irrelevant, because it will get you sniped. OK...

Standing still ADS is amazing, Gauss OP.
Moving ADS CoF: Gauss 0.5, CARV 0.4; ADS CoF Bloom/Shot: Guass 0.07, CARV 0.05

After removal of flinching mechanics SAW and CARV are balanced pretty well. But as Planescape: Torment had its famous question: "What can change the nature of a man", we, Planetside 2 players, must explore our own great mystery: "What can stop the whining of TR?"

Guns that aren't blatantly statistically inferior to their VS/NC counter parts would be a good start.

Please delete.

Brilliant, but sad that you have to spell it out when it is so bloody obvious in game.

Compared to GD-22S and Anchor and EM6 the SAW has the best iron sights, so you should consider yourself really lucky... And 1x sights on NC have slightly larger dots (making it harder to engage distant target because it obstructs more), and the fat bars on the side of the sight make it harder to track fast moving targets. Anchor is even worse, the red dot is so large its almost hillarious. JFYI - i never use the SAW.

SAW is a good long-med range gun, but it takes alot of practice to be any efficient in cqb with it. Its a pretty bad beginner weapons. 400 certs into it, its good. How long did you take for your first 400 certs? thats an awefull lot for a newbie.
NC got a longrange weapon as default, while VS got a out-of-the-box cqb beast as default. TR - not so sure. I have recently made a TR char (mainly for trying out the mossie and see if it feels better then reaver) and played a lil bit heavy, but not enough to make any statement. Chances are it would be shot down anyway because "that guy is NC".

Good to see somebody proving what the TR have been saying since beta. Even if you ignore the numbers, why does the SAW get a compensator + adv. Foregrip when nobody else does?
S
S
Rate of Fire is not an advantage, its a Liability.

This holds entirely true for VS except I'd trade all for a SAW or TMG-50.

The CME (652 RoF 143 damage assault rifle) gets adv. grip, too.

Which is odd, because it has right leaning recoil, making the grip much less useful than on a gun that "wobbles" - like say, the Corvus.

Adv. grip on the Flare and Ursa would be pretty good, it's disappointing they don't already have it.

You think the SAW and CARV are balanced? When LMG's are just for mid/long range load outs and TR has worse sideways recoil, first shot recoil, recoil recovery with no advanced foregrip to help with any of it. In simple terms TR LMG's are worse at range then the NC starter LMG/SAW. Shotguns are for everything else.

BTW. Planescape Torment quotes have no place here but so long as you bring them up.

"When the injustice is great enough, justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it."

One does not simply controls the Carv...

You can argue that Vanu LMGs are superior to TR ones and I will even agree with you. But they are also superior to NC LMGs and as I said earlier NC ~= TR in that category.
TR has the best carbines and stats show that - Lynx and Jaguar have by far the best K/D ratio and Score/hr.
In Assault Rifles, TAR is on the top in KDR and Sc/hr.
TR's pistols are doing fine, roughly on same the level as other pistols.
Sniper rifles, shotguns are all the same.
I have no idea about SMGs, can't comment on that.

I've no idea where do you see the problem. In SMGs? Because excluding LMGs (Vanu OP lol), TR weapons are performing either on par or better than VS/NC counterparts.

Did anyone mention the differences in attachments?

T9 is completely underclassed compared to the weapons NC and especially VS use. I still use my T9 simply because the other options available as TR are pretty crappy. I like the weapon at medium range (a little), it totally blows anywhere else.

Yeah I really disliked the iron sights on most NC guns. TR has the best IS, but the excessive flash makes them difficult to use in my experience.

The Carv is ok. It does alright at CQC, but has quite a bit of random side-to-side recoil (even with foregrip) which, when combined with its high ROF, make it practically useless past short to medium ranges (e.g. I use the 1x Night Vision Scope and never engage targets that are any farther away than about 2/3'rds of the scope's range).

TMG-50 is what what I use 95% of the time. The gun is well-balanced with a slower ROF that makes it easier to control.

There is a large problem with this in general and here it is. Numbers will lie to you. Don't get me wrong they accurately reflect the mechanics involved with the game and it's engine, what they don't tell you is how they interact with your ability to react to them and your own playstyle.

Some people are better suited to playing with the VS weapons, some the TR and some the NC. Each person will, sometimes to the complete opposition of the numbers find they do far better with supposedly "inferior weapons." This is because humans are not computers with digital reactions to precise data, we have an analogue reaction and often our perceptions alone will change how well we do with something.

A few examples, statistically the SAW should outdo the EM6 especially with the upgrades available, in reality some people will prefer the EM6 some the SAW. Statistically the CARV is weaker then the Orion, but I find the CARV easier to use in general.

Then there are silly little things that change it, the adv foregrip for example could do nothing, but putting it on convinces you the gun is easier to control and it will be from your perception. If the sounds change it may throw you off (I know I play far worse when the sounds change on me).

Some people despite any amount of number crunching are going to kill better with the CARV than the SAW, which leads me to the point of all this. The numbers DO NOT MATTER, all that matters are results, which is why some people claim the CARV is OP and others claim it's the weakest gun in the game, because it's how they kill with it or get killed by it that matters not a spreadsheet. Thats why no amount of number crunching is going to convince anyone that has made up their mind about the guns and how they perform. (Also why random buffing and nerfing rarely accomplishes much)

In closing I might suggest if you truly think the TR guns are the worst that you might have choosen an empire that is inconsistent with your playstyle and either change empires or learn to live with it. Myself I kill far more efficiently with my TR or VS but stick with NC because I like it, not because I play better with it.

Carv is a piece of ****, but of course we have forum warriors from the NC and VS side attempting to claim that it's good.

All that said, how do you explain the differences in the K/D between the three of them being 0.04 over a 2 week period, with the CARV being the highest of the three?