Why TR guns suck.

The better your aim, the worse TR's infantry weapons get relative to NC and to a lesser extent VS.

Maybe statistically, through sheer numbers of noobs being better off with fast firing, large magazine defaults, TR weapons were outperforming. However, how many players want to get better at the game, to find out their weapons have a low ceiling where you simply can't get much more out of your gun?


So here's my ground breaking constructive idea before I rant: How about giving all factions both "spray" weapons and "aim weapons" instead of flooding TR with the former and NC with the latter?


High horizontal and CoF really ruin TR weapons for me, and they're almost all 143 bullet damage and limited to CQC. There's such limited selection for players who want a more aim-rewarding weapon, and/or long range viability.

Now, both VS and NC have faster TTK options for Carbines. So even for sheer CQC power, the only real strength of the majority of TR weapons, they're not even ahead.

T5 AMC vs. Mercenary/Razor or even the Pulsar C is kind of a joke, it just doesn't have the burst damage or the accuracy - for whatever reason apparently 143 damage weapons have to get larger CoFs than 167 unless they're burst mode weapons? Why even bother making them into long range weapons if you're automatically going to cripple them in one of the most important stats for that role? And why do they all have to have terrible TTKs when 167/600 RoF guns pull off a respectable one especially if they go for headshots?

LMGs, well, it's been well known for awhile that TR's LMGs selection sucked, yet, somehow nothing seems to get done about this patch after patch. The TMG-50 has been obviously inferior to the EM6 for as long as I can remember, I'm pretty sure the Ursa outperforms it as well. The MSW-R is a downgraded Orion, the Rhino a NS-style pea shooter people use for lack of decent real long range options.

SMGs, it seems pretty commonly acknowledged that Cyclone and Sirius > Armistice or Hailstorm.

Their only good guns right now are ARs, TRV and SABR-13 at least give them both a solid close and longer range weapon - assuming TRV is the go-to CQC weapon if TAR got hit like the Jaguar.

I've given up and am sticking to my NC character as a primarily infantry using player. My BR50 TR is on the shelf awaiting fixes, I can't play with guns that won't reward my improvements anymore. I'm not even a great player, but I have enough aim to want guns that actually shoot where I point past 15-20 meters. Those extra 10 rounds aren't doing jack for me if they're hitting air.

Oh no, the 4th faction is heading for the NC.

TR still have the Prowler at least, it's probably still the most noob friendly thing to succeed with aside from a certed out MAX. I wouldn't worry too much - NC also still has an uglier color scheme and obnoxious music to put people off.

Wait so you're saying TR infantry weapon arsenal is inferior to the VS/NC ?
blasphemy.

I can absolutely agree to the quoted passages.

Where is NC Jesus when you need him....

Top lel m8.

Right, so the year+ that NC was hardcoded as the worst faction in most regards and was getting stomped in performance metrics by both TR/VS it was all "L2P" and "NC suck".

Over a year later they finally get around to outstanding balance issues and suddenly now you have an issue? No real surprise there that you took no issue whatsoever with TR's "superior tactics" (aka OP weapons) until they were no longer OP.

Here is an idea: 1) start gathering performance metric related data from the API, 2) combine convergent evidence that TR are UP in many many respects, 3) post this information as constructively as possible on the forums while dealing with people constantly flaming you, telling you that you suck, and suggesting you L2P, 4) continue to do this for over a year, all the while compiling more performance data from different times, using different metrics, all showing convergent evidence that TR is UP.

Then, and only then, will you have an idea of what it has been like to play for NC and then, and only then, should SOE consider making adjustments (but be very reluctant and instead make broad based changes because by that time you may have learned to play with subpar equipment so well that they are afraid to balance things).

It has not even been a full 24 hours yet so you may want to work on your commitment if you expect to continue making your case for the next 10,000 hours.

.

Performance metrics aren't everything, and I'm not saying NC had no issues. They had by far the least new-player friendly starter weapons and still do. The SAW definitely shouldn't be their HA started. That doesn't mean they have bad guns. The guns were really bad pre-flinch change but after that I still preferred them - then the Cyclone and Jackhammer rounded out their CQC options a bit better - problem still being those are costly and their defaults are longer range ADS weapons.

GD-7F definitely needed a buff to give them a better/more comparable/competitive CQC Carbine. However, it's long overdue TR get the same treatment where they've been lacking which is long range, and NC's basic issue still remains: their starter weapons aren't friendly to new players.

Dude, whats your problem? Use NS weaponry

Stopped caring for your thread right....

there.

Ugh, ew. I understand some people like them but for the same reasons I hate the T5 AMC, I hate the NS weapons. Other than the pistols of course.

Yeah, bring back the days where TR weapons were all almost perfectly accurate with hipfire, while flinchlocking everything they so much as pointed in the general direction of! After the first initial nerf of TR weapons, they were only flat-out upgrades to other factions instead of being stupidly OP. But now after a second round of much smaller nerfs, they're only balanced and comparable to the other factions! This is intolerable!

Wait, so one NC CQC option got brought up to par and suddenly the NC are just fine?

TR have long range options- there was a video just the other day of a someone just owning people at range and in CQC with 6x scope. I forget know what weapon they were using but it was wild, way better than you are likely to do with many NC weapons.

NC had "some issues" that is a laugh. You have not even been with the patch a day, not even one day- I've been with NC for over a year so you will get exactly 0 sympathy. Gather some performance metrics after enough time has gone by and start making your case- if there is any fairness in the world you realize you would have to be between 25-40% worse than NC in several different areas for over a year before the devs even think about doing anything to change it. Not saying that is what I want to see, just saying that that would be balance.

Also, no one knows what the latest performance metrics might indicate- what if they show NC still well behind TR/VS in many, if not all, of the same areas?

ITT: gibberish

TR infantry weapons are some of the best iv'e ever used in Planetside 2, carbines and assault rifles are straight upgrades compared to the NC/VS arsnel.
You want the EM6 ? Sure take it and give NC the MSW-R, aka the upgraded orion since it has the same stats but can put soft point ammo and an advance laser sight.
You want the Pulsar C ? Take it and give the VS a 40 round carbine that has 750 RPM and a low first shot recoil multiplier(Trac-5).

I pray to the all mighty Higby than the devs will never listen to insane people like you, if you were in charge NC and VS would be using plastic forks as weapons

Interpretation is everything. They nerfed the IRNV scope because it was being used more. The problem is that it was superior because the other sights are inaccurate, which still hasn't been resolved. They nerfed the rotary because it was over-used, but that was because it was better for A2A, and so people happened to shoot ground more with it because it's what they had. Bad interpretations hurt everyone. Top NC players do really well with their equipment so they didn't want to buff NC; but that doesn't address NC having unfriendly starter weapons (though I love your starter carbine).

Back when I started NC had 40% world pop regularly and had some crazy good stuff
Of course SOE then broke it for nine months....

The weapon in that video was the T5 AMC, one of the few remaining really good TR carbines. The thing is it requires you to be good at aiming and to go for headshots, and it's medium RPM with 143 damage. It's a good weapon, but lacks in CQC, and isn't something many people can use as well as the guy in the video. It's a good carbine, but is range-limited to longer ranges (which I'm sure NC can appreciate).

One video proves nothing, it was a TRAC-5 AMC and even the video maker went over some of the problems with the weapon(horizontal recoil). It's also selected highlight footage, not everyday use.

Everyone who has been playing for awhile is aware by now NC has fewer CQC options. Making those CQC options good was important, but the Mercenary is still not going to beat Solstice or TRAC-5 performance and so it may still look like NC underperforms.

Yes, GD-7F is only one gun. Should NC have more CQC options? Sure, I'm all for that, but of course VS/TR need more/better longer range options for it to be fair and that's my problem right now.

9 months ago the NC were still underperforming in every regard they have always been, the only change then was the MAX (the one area where they were actually in the lead).

Also, yeah, any weapon that is good at range should be lack luster in CQC. Only issue here is that the AMC, while being good at range, is also good at CQC (well, at least, far far better than say the ACX-11 and it is not as though the ACX-11 was all that great at long range anyway due to projectile velocity, really the ACX-11 is best in the strange midrange but at least it got some love).