Overhaul the NC weapon models, naming, and desciptions to be more consistant.

Most weapons:

1. Why do most of the weapons have ejection ports? Gauss weapons fire caseless ammo so there is nothing to eject. I can understand the shotguns, they use conventional shells. remove the ejection ports.

2. Many weapon barrels around hollow. They look just like a bar instead of a barrel.

Carbines:

1. AC-X11 (which uses gauss) looks like a NC semi-auto or full auto shotgun (conventional). Also why is its description saying it was made before the war? The gauss weapons were not introduced until after the war started, when the NC needed weapons and didnt have access to conventional firearms outside of thier shotguns. This would mean the NC1 and NC2 atleast were even older. If the gauss weapons were designed before the war then the TR would have banned and confenscated them. Also who makes it?

2. The AF-19 Mercenary, why did you change its name? It used to be the NC2 Gauss compact, a shorter variant of the NC1 Gauss rifle. The Gauss Compat Burst and Gauss Compact S still list the name as the NC2B and NC2S respectively.

3. The AF-4A Bandits, which is supposed I guess to be a variant of the AF-4 Cyclone, uses a completely different model and it is a carbine as opposed to a smg. So besides the description and manufacturer, it has NOTHING to do with the AF-4 Cyclone. The least you could do is give it a more similar model just with a bigger magazine.

4. (I know this is Common Pool but I have to mention it) The NS-11C. Why is its magazine model larger than the NS-11A's? Supposedly both use the same type of round, with the NS-11A's longer barrel allowing for higher muzzle velocities and more accuracy at range. They both have the same ammo count. Even if the NS-11A uses larger round casings with more powder to achieve the higher velocities that should make it have the larger of the two magazines. Adjust the NS-11C's model to have the same magazine as the NS-11A

5. The Razor GD-23, this weapon also suffers from having a description saying it was made too early. It says it was made in the early 29th century, the war started in the mid 29th century. Unless you count 2845-2849 as "early" 28th century, but that is cutting it close.

Assault Rifles:

1. The Carnage AR also suffers from a pre-war description. It is listed as having been made in the late 28th century, but the war started in the mid 29th. One caviet, I do like the exposed capacitors, indicating it is a early design. Also who makes it?

2. The GR-22. Why not make the AF-4A Bandit a variant of this? They have similar designs and serve similar roles. As rifles that have increased accuracy while on the move. Also who makes it?

3. Why doesn't the NC1 Gauss Rifle look like the NC2 Gauss Compact? Make the models more similar.

4. the NC-9 A-Tross. Why is the - there between the C and the 9? No other NC produced weapons have it.

5. The Reaper DMR. Looks like a AR variant of the AC-X11, can we have a connection there in the description?

Light Machine Guns:

1. The EM6 looks exactly like the NC6 variants. Can we just get a decription saying that it was EM6s variant? Like how many different companys produce AR15s IRL? Like that Esamir Munitions produced them because NC's main weapon manufacturers couldnt produce them fast enough.

Sniper rifles:

1. The AF-8 Railjack. This was a missed oppertunity to add a little back story to the NC's weapons. The Railjack is supposed to be a "cutting edge" sniper rifle. But ,as gauss designs go, it looks like one of the oldest. Intead it easily could have been described as a pre-war mining tool that was refitted and weaponized. Like a tool used to fire sensors into rock. It could have been labeled as a foreunner to all NC gauss weapons. It would explain its MASSIVE size, something that is not optimal for a sniper, its small magazine, its slow reload, and its higher velocity w/ delay.

2. Various other weapons (Impetus, Gauss SPR, and the SAS-R) have no indicator on which company produced them (NC, EM, LA, AF?)

Shotguns:

1. Three of the shotguns (AF-57 piston, Mauler S6, NC12 Sweeper) all use the same model. The NC12 in its description says it the "iconic" shotgun of the NC. The 2 pump action shotguns get unique models, why not the 2 semi-autos and the full auto? Also the models they do have look too much like the gauss based weaponry. I'd like to see more shotgun models like the GD-66 Claw and LA-39 Bruiser.

2. The MAX shotguns all use the same model.

Pistols:

1. Give the LA8 Rebel and the NC4 Mag-shot different models.

Rocket Launchers:

1. Both the AF-22 Crow and the GD-68 Hawk have a texture glitch where thier weapon camos cover thier sight's eye piece. It doesnt effect gameplay but it is highly noticable on the 1st person model.

Do you really want to have it the vs way? Imo the NC are the most diverse faction if it comes to weapon design, take a look at the vs models.


Unfortunatly I couldnt find a nc chart, but do you really want to have the VS way?

The lack of model variation is the least of my complaints, what Im getting at is the inconsistancy

We don't actually know how ammo is packed. Perhaps, for arguments sake, each round contains a small battery, which is used to propel the round, since I've never seen an external battery replaced. The energy has to come from somewhere.

OP why do you care about these minor issues. You pay attention to minuscule things way too much. Also its kind of a waste of time to have to remodel everything because of omg lore and all the fanfic fans will crie if you don't fix.

As much as I think the OP is overreacting to what is essentially a minor lore ****up in a game where lore is nigh-on irrelevant, I would like some more unique gun design.

I wonder just how busy the artists are since they so rarely add anything to this game. Coders have their hands full all the time and level designers tol probably since it takes such to make maps. Weapon models are very quick by comparison.

I always assumed the rounds were small pieces of metal, while the rest of the magazine was the battery.

1. I suffer from OCD.
2. I'm not asking to remodel everything, I just saying make things abit more consistent.
3. I like the lore of this game. Pardon me for enjoying a game where there is no clear good guy or bad guy in a genre that is awash with white/black morality. I am also a fan of gauss type weaponry. I am also a member of the US Army, so I notice when something doesn't make much sense on a weapon (like a gauss weapon having a ejection port)
4. And why not complain? I pay for this game, I buy the weapons, I subscribe for membership. I love this game and I want the devs and publisher to make a profit. At the same time, I'm not gonna sit around and be content when I see things I feel need changing.

Thumbs up for the effort, its sad that you have to point out mistakes they shouldn't have made in the first place.
Its not like the artists and modelers are overburdened with work, they're barely making anything new anyway, just approving player studio items.

I've been told I need to work in the video game industry for stuff like this. They just need like a editor, someone to point out inconsistencies or weaknesses in the writing. Yes there is little writing in this game, but that just makes errors all the more apparent.

NC corporations having their own unique art-style for their weapons would be really, really cool.

The only issue I have is that some of these corporations don't have a really solid 'theme' to the equipment they make, and there are tons of guns, standard-issue or otherwise, that don't have a labeled source (gauss saw, gauss rifle, gauss compact, shrike, carnage, falcon, jackhammer, bolt driver, vehicles, etc).

AF makes really strong close-range, ground level weaponry (that everyone uses) like the merc, bandit, grinder, cyclone, so there's one exception...

but then you have GD, which is just all over the place and has stuff like the 22s, 7F, a ground-lockon no one uses, the 2nd gen smg

EM, which makes 2 bullethose LMGs, em4 sniper

LA, which makes the anchor, la80 sniper, rebel



There's also the part where SoE is wary of having too many textures or models or whatever the hell it is they believe they can't load too many of, unless they're helmets or camo...

Some better lore would be nice. Many of the descriptions are inconsistent like you pointed out, and the different manufacturers are apparently limited to two kinds of stocks, receivers, and barrels for each class of weapon, so a Genudine Dynamics weapon can look like it was made by Auraxis Firearms Corporation. There are unique exceptions with the GD-7F, the Cyclone and Blitz, and a few others. Having a few iconic pieces like that is enough for me. For now at least.

All player studio helmets use the same texture. All weapons (per faction) use the same texture too, it's just a really big file. I don't see why they can't be more creative.

I always figured this would make a good manufacturer specific stats set:
NC makes the most well balanced of the NC weapons
AF makes the most accurate weapons of the NC weapons (Accuracy)
GD makes the fastest firing of the NC weapons (at the cost of magazine sizes but with faster reloads) (DPS)
EM makes the largest magazine weapons with decent reload speeds, but with lower damage (Bullet Spam)
LA makes the most powerful of the NC weapons (at the cost of magazine size, reload speed, and accuracy) (Power)

Of course still keeping the usual NC stats of power > everything else. So even the fastest firing NC weapon doesn't compare to a TR weapon. At the same time, even the most powerful shot for shot TR weapon doesn't compare to a NC weapon.

Personally, I feel there are almost enough models to give each manufacturer their own unique look.

I wish that they would at least use a different grip for the weapons. 90% of the weapons have the Mag-Shots grip with the spot to put in the pistol magazine still there. If you look closely you can see that the RailJack has the same grip.
(Look at the grip were you hold the weapon) - Here is an example:
_ _
Also the weapons that behave the same should look similar if they won't remodel them. For example, the ACX-11 looks similar to the Reaper and they behave the same but the EM1 looks like the L.M.G. version of them but behaves completely different.

I now these details are minor and there are more important things to focus on, but little details like this overall make the game better in my opinion.

Little things add up to big things. Plus as Planetside 2 comes to PS4, there will be ALOT more people looking at it and playing it than just us who have good PCs. So these little things will become far more noticeable

Well, that's quite a lot of effort you put into this!

Naturally a lot of the model stuff is due to needing to reduce the number of rendered variables for optimization reasons, and the naming convention thing is basically whatever the creative team thinks sounds cool, but I can actually answer your general #1 question: Even with caseless ammunition, firearms still need an ejection port in order to extract misfired rounds. Not that we have ammunition failures in-game, but from an in-context perspective it's a valid concern; wouldn't want your gun to become useless because a defective primer wouldn't go off and you can't eject the dud cartridge.

Okay, so the artists probably didn't actually think of that and put it on by "mistake" because they figure that's what a gun should look like, but there is a valid reason for having an ejection port even when using caseless ammunition.

If you want examples of weapon manufacturers who can produce firearms that look, feel, and shoot differently, look no further than the


They had maybe 10 different manufacturers, each with their own naming convention, art style, and weapon characteristics. You could tell what sort of weapon you were about to use just by looking at the brand name.

Atlas- higher damage, high magazine capacity
Dahl- low recoil, burst fire
Eridian- alien tech
Hyperion- high damage, high accuracy
Jakobs- extreme damage
Maliwan- DoT effects
S&S- high magazine capacity, DoT effects
Tediore- fast reloads
Torgue- high damage, fast rate of fire
Vladof- extreme rate of fire

That game pretty much revolved around the firearms, so no surprise they at least made them all quite interesting!

I think we are getting side tracked (myself included). My main concern is with the lack of consistency.

The weapon names and descriptions need cleaning up (and made more lore friendly) and the game models need more consistency. If a weapon is a variant of another weapon, it need to look similar to that weapon. And general model clean up (like that lock on launcher texture covering the eye piece).

Though I wouldn't mind seeing the different manufacturers have noticeable and consistent stat differences.

Just read your message. Remember, Gauss weapon ammunition doesn't use cartridges or primers. They are small, aerodynamic bits of metal that are accelerated down the barrel via a series of magnets.

Here is a example of a real life Gauss gun:

Normally true, but if you read over the canon weapon details again you'll find that NC Gauss weaponry is actually a hybrid approach, using an initial caseless propellant charge to drive a projectile down a magnetic coil-accelerated barrel which supplements it, rather than relying solely on magnetic acceleration. I suppose there's some merits to this approach; the reduced reliance on what may only be a single stage acceleration coil in short-barreled applications reduces potential efficiency losses due to ferromagnetic saturation, but it does strike me as a bit pessimistic that no one could figure out a working infantry weapon relying only on Gauss technology almost a thousand years from now.

But even if that wasn't the case, the fact remains that there is always a non-zero chance for weapons to jam such that requires extraction of unfired or non-firing ammunition, or even in more extreme scenarios foreign matter entering the chamber that requires manual extraction. Having an ejection port for those times is just good design sense.