Quite a few TR MAX users i know only have the Fractures unlocked, so they tend to use them whenever they pull out their MAX suit.
My previous post was ironic. Even if my main is TR, i never used Fractures in an other place than VR.
OR how about we try something revolutionary: instead of nerfing some weapon to balance it, buff all the others to bring them all in line! Seriously, I'm kinda sick and tired of seeing nerfs and people screaming for nerfs in this game. Especially after something has already been nerfed or is somewhat UP in many ways (cough cough MAX AI cough cough 1st gen MAX AV cough cough), So how about a round of buffs for everything but fractures that attempts to make all MAX AV weapons viable, each in a slightly different way. Asymmetrical game balance.
Yes but the problem at hand in this thread is that Fractures are extremely effective as Anti-Infantry weapons, if we buff all the other Max AV weapons to the level of the fractures, then everybody will just use Max AV weapons to kill infantry because they are also able to kill Max's extremely quick, while having the ability to seriously damage or destroy vehicles, so why use AI weapons which are limited to infantry and Max's when you could use AV weapons as your do-it-all tool?
Are they really that good against infantry? You make it sound as if everyone is using them over chainguns. I don't think they are overall better against infantry than chainguns. I would not bring them into a building unless I want to do something weird.
I would not say they are better than the chainguns against infantry, but really, they are very powerful against infantry and provide too much versatility over chainguns, to the point where people use them in Bio Labs and Towers as Anti-Infantry-Max-Vehicle Weapons. if you nerf the AI capability a little bit (From 4 hit kill to something like a 6-10 hit kill, keep their Anti-Max power though), then people will start using the Fractures for their intended purpose, which is Anti-Armor/Max. Why Fractures are so good against infantry? 4 Hit Kill, Fast Projectile Velocity, 10 rounds per clip, fast reload, all while being able to rip vehicles and Max's to shreds faster than any Scattercannon or Max AV Weapon.
Ok. I don't think ive ever been killed by one, but if it's a problem, then there's probably a way to fix it. Although I would like to extend the idea that if they were so good against infantry while retaining their AV role and effectiveness vs. vehicles, as you are proposing, they would be the go to weapon for TR MAXes; the chainguns simply would not be used because of the obvious advantage in versatility that the fractures would provide. Quick example. I was just playing a few hours ago, and of the five TR MAXes i encountered, 2 were using dual fractures. The only time i saw either of the fracture MAXes target infantry was when one targeted and killed a light assault trying to C4 him. I would contend that if fractures truly were as versatile as you are suggesting, then the three MAXes who used chainguns would have instead used fractures and the fracture MAXes would have spent more time targeting the waves of infantry running towards the base they were defending as opposed to the relatively few vehicles in the area. Just my 2 cents; it would be a real problem if they bumped AI specific weapons from their intended role, but as they don't at the moment...it's debatable whether or not a fix is needed. I'll keep my eye out for fracture MAXes whenever I play though and watch what they do. That could very well change my opinion depending on what I see.
My general opinion on Fractures are, if you see a Dual Fracture Max rolling around a Bio Lab, something is wrong there, especially when there is more than 1 of them. They just offer too much versatility in my opinion, not saying they shouldn't be good at AV, but they should not be as good for AI as they are right now.
They could always just give an arbitrary resistance to fractures to all infantry. You know, like the Lancer and Vortex *shrug*. Fractures seem too good, but Pounders seem too poor. Dual fractures > Dual comets >>> Dual pounders. While I don't feel that cert cost should directly correlate to offensive power, it is definitely an issue if two factions only need to spend 250 to get a decent AV setup, while one needs to spend 2000 in order to get an OP one rather than 250 for a poor one.
This guy gets it. Support for the Infantry? Strategy???? DDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPP
Actually I think you will find that Pounders actually out DPS Fractures. The difference is, they are severely range limited. If you're fighting vehicles exclusively at short ranges (under 100 m), Pounders are probably the way to go. Its much like Ravens vs Falcons. Ravens are good for long ranges against moving targets. Falcons are good for long ranges against stationary targets, or short ranges against moving targets (because of a slow projectile). If you use Ravens at short range, you're giving up quite a bit of DPS for guidance you don't need. If you're using Fractures at short range, you're giving up some DPS for projectile velocity and range you don't need.
24+ days of experience with the game's weapons is not lost by playing a different faction. As for bias, the only thing I want NC to have more of is fair fights. Same for TR and VS. If you need more convincing, go look at my posting history. I've always been advocating for TR to get a better long-range AV gun then the current Fractures. Something that covers the holes in the TR MAX's weapon ability, but doesn't overlap and double-up on current weapon choices. SOE just got carried away with the dakka-dakka when what they really needed was a bolt-action, imho.
I fully agree with you that we all want fair and even fights and of course balance, but that is not always the main intention with some of the posters here ( present company excluded), who's only agenda is to nerf anything that creates any resistance to a player, for me that's not what a game is about.
Monkeyboobs, I like a guy who goes for stats rather than emotion but as far as I know, the stats you refer to are pulled since PS2 began, and are not 100% current or accurate. I don't find it a "huge gap" in say 21 kills/hour vs say 23 kills/hour. That's only a few %. Also the data includes prenerf scatmaxes so naturally they dominate. I think the key data is this: a fracture is 4-6x WORSE than pretty much all the "standard" AI weapons (scatterguns, blueshifts, mercies). #1. Are fractures the best infantry-killers out of the AV weapons? Yes. However, they only slightly lead the Falcon (which doesn't attract "nerf" crying) #2. Are fractures a better AI option than an AI weapon? Clearly not. Even if NC MAXes have been nerfed hard and this data is no longer accurate, they would still be 3-4x better than fractures in killing infantry. The "fracture beats AI" is clearly hyperbole and whining.
You can't draw these kind of conclusions from this data though because it shows people who died in vehicles alongside the people who died as infantry. I might finish off a 12/12 sunderer for 12 kills with my Falcons, and on those stats, it shows up just the same as someone who killed 12 infantry. Secondly, you can't conclude that fractures are "4-6x WORSE" than the AI weapons, because people don't usually pull Fractures to kill infantry. The 'average' person is going to pull them to kill vehicles and take several seconds per vehicle destroyed with the possibility of the crew bailing out before the vehicles destroyed. To make a real comparison you need stats on the weapons engaging infantry directly, something we don't have.
