Movement modifier weapons list

Pistols are all 75% not 50%. But mostly people put laser sights on them and hip fire is 100% movement so eh. Likewise things like jackhammer and shotguns are mostly hipfire weapons and effectively 100%. Lasher and MCG should also be hipfire but I think MCG now has some ludicrous aim down sights mode because buzzcut threw his toys out of the pram or something. I don't really use it.

aw yeah oops :/
meant to say .75 on all pistols

Oh well, I think a PSA now and then telling people how ads movement speed is a real advantage for rifles is a good thing but hipfire weapons are another thing.

Carbines are like on the border of being better for ads or hipfire. Like the Lynx at the moment is OK as a CQC hipfire weapon but ADS is so worthless that it doesn't really matter if it has 75% or not. But if the T5 AMC had 75% it would be crazy.

Nice post Auxi!

Anchor more accurate than the Orion

most of the nc guns have the most controllable recoil since they are highly vertical with less horizontal recoil.

vs's faction trait is supposed to be mobility so now we want to get rid of our faction trait and add it to the other factions?

ur entire post was gimmi gimmi gimmi while nerf vs. another whine buff nc thread. havent we had enough of these already? every faction has things better than other factions and things worse than other factions. thats what asymmetric balance is.

having trouble killing vs heavies? l2aim brehhh![/quote]

Simply remove the .75 movement speed modifiers. It is such a silly concept to begin with. Or make every faction have the same .75 modifiers.

Example: ALL ARs have .75... ALL LMGs have .5 etc etc.

It is the ONLY way to balance them out if PS2 Devs want to keep them in game.

Why?

Because its extremely hard to balance something that is unpredictable. A .75 modifier for players with relative low skill in FPS games won't be able to appreciate the difference as much as players with a higher skill base. As your playing "skill" increases in an FPS game, one of the biggest differences is your ability to hit moving targets AND your ability to shoot while strafing. Both of which are greatly affected by these "movement" modifiers. Thus, balancing them is extremely difficult when applied to empire specific guns because skill progression is not a linear process.

PS2 has been constantly shooting themselves in the foot by trying to say... "we want this as e-sports and a competitive fps game", while at the same time they have MANY FPS flaws that limit this game growing as a "competitive FPS game".

Changing movement modifiers across the board is a good way to push this game towards a "competitive shooter"

give the anchor .75 ads please soe thanks

Is it just me or should pistols have a 0.75x modifier?

I believe they do.

Not according to the OP

I beleive the OP is wrong, and corrected himself somewhere,

Yep.

Strongly disagree. Not all weapon types are meant for a mobile role, and the type and weight of weapon should be what affects its mobility. .75 ADS is not an equal advantage on different weapon types.

Right now it's a pretty big advantage having access to higher ADS movement LMGs because they have poor hip-fire so moving faster while ADSing is a bigger deal for close range, and plus HA are the strongest class in straight up fire-fights where ADS movement matters more than it does for an ambush or support class. It's less of an advantage on carbines because they're used on classes not well suited for straight up fire-fights.

We don't have asymmetrical balance, we just have imbalance.

LMGs should NOT have .75 ADS period. Most Carbines should have faster ADS movement, ARs in between, LMGs the slowest. Some differentiation between CQC and mid-long range variants of each weapon type would be fine as well.

There are better ways to make factions unique than giving them clearly superior options for certain weapon types/infantry roles.

This is false though. NC weapons are not inaccurate. You can complain about fire rates or smaller selection CQC weapons and ADS movement multipliers, but complaining about accuracy as NC kind of ruins your credibility. They have easily the most accurate selection of infantry guns, unless you confuse vertical recoil for inaccuracy.

NC's mid-long range advantage over VS and especially TR is as dramatic as the advantage VS/TR get in closer ranges from ADS move speed / high RoF.

Ok, that's what i thought would make the most sense

Thank you for making sense of why i could get killed IvI when meeting a vanu with an LMG at close range while sporting my SMG as a cloaker. In FarCry3 multi it was a rule that the SMGs won every time when facing a heavy to bring up weapon upon rounding a corner or at less than 50 feet, while the LMG would own an SMG at 100 yards cause the SMG could not get enough rounds into the LMG becuase of poor accuracy.
Apparantly in PS2 world a big heavy VANU LMG with much better accuracy at range can also serve as a CQC weapon able to be brought up fast and shoot while running who'd of thunk it?
I believe all light guns : pistols, smgs should have CQC advantage. All carbines and AR's should have less ability and the worst should be the big heavy LMGs and Rocket launchers.
I know when carrying my launcher i get killed by every confrontation by guys with guns becuase I rarely can get a shot off because its so slow.

Who really cares? If its that big a frikkin deal to you go buy the NS guns and ****...

They recently nerfed the hip-fire accuracy across the board for all LMGs which was a stealth buff for the two VS lmgs with x0.75 because they are best able to cope with ADS cqc.
'Asymmetrical balance' is often synonymous with 'OP', and the phrase is oft uttered as a justification for it. I would be all for asymmetrical balance if there were real contrasts in weapons and styles. If PS 2 were to make strides to render the heavy assault not the go to infantry for 90% of situations then the VS having a movement speed advantage on their weapons would be entirely justified.
E.g. The VS have some of the best heavy assault, but those NC engineers can certainly do a job like (like say they have additional grenades including stun/movement modifier ones and or regen shield grenades), or the TR infiltrators can really infiltrate 'like through a longer, better cloak or a faction specific recon dart that messes with tanks.' Something along those lines. In the current iteration asymmetrical balance is more of a marketing ploy than an actual game experience for most players. When ever the developers do try to introduce new faction specific weapons the tears on forumside flow as people cry 'OP' calling for weapon 'x' to get a nerf, this nerfs asymmetrical balance in my opinion.
It is very unsurprising that NC and TR players call fowl at the current state of LMGs movements speeds because it does make a large difference in a number of game scenarios, for the most part in PS 2 you are best off using a heavy assault for the additional over shield and most ability to handle tanks/air, this is somewhat exasperated by the tank spam/zergs that are prevalent.

Do I want the weapon ads movement speeds to be changed? no, however I would like more strides in balancing the infantry classes as a whole and giving factions a trait that gives them an edge in a certain class which means they have counters to other factions 'strengths'. But then again this may cause the forum servers to overload from the weight of rage posts.
This is just my 10xp *shrugs shoulders.*

Yes, because the carbines and large machine guns should be balanced out, but the assault rifles where your faction excels in should be left as it is, right? Your long reloads are a faction trait, why does it need additional compensation? Though you own characters of all three factions, your bias is still showing, regardless of your attempts to attribute your proposals to experience on the field on all sides of the front.