You said it. Of the 167-damage LMGs, the Flare has the worst horizontal recoil, horizontal tolerance and FSRM, and it's average or worse in every other category. With the right attachments its useable, but it's simply inferior to the other 167 LMGs. https://docs.google.com/a/efsllc.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AuOojvNLMApVdEtIU1NKenEzNzZOSWNaanFqSUVxLWc&type=view&gid=92&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=LMG&colid1=3&filterstr1=167 @ 10m&sortcolid=1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250 Don't compare the Flare to the TR/NC 167-LMGs. You'll only be disappointed. It simply doesn't have the damage output of the EM6 or Anchor up close and doesn't have the range capability of any of them. For all-around use I would strongly suggest dropping the ext mags and giving the foregrip another try. Comp + foregrip should extend the Flare's range to about 60-75m once you get used to the recoil. You should only really benefit from ext mags during high-pop close range slugfests. If you find that 75 rounds isn't enough for general use IMO you should lay off the trigger a bit and reload more. The Flare and Ursa are really designed for two different engagement ranges. The Ursa is a good long range LMG but it's terrible at close range and only mediocre at medium range due to its horribly low DPS and vulnerability to Flinch. OTOH the Flare is more of a close/medium range weapon. This is unlike NC 167-LMGs which can handle all ranges fairly well and this might explain some of your dissatisfaction w/ the Flare.. The trick to using the 3.4x Chevron is to aim the chevron so it sits on top of your target's head like a hat. Do this and it becomes quite accurate. IMO it's a better scope than the Holo since its lens is slightly bigger, its frame blocks less of your screen, and when your target is "wearing the hat" you can still see the entire head so headshots become easier at range. Beyond 50-60m the 3.4x Holo dot blocks the head entirely.
I only VR'd the thing, but I felt like it handled like a dream with a x2, grip and comp onit. When I tried exmags and other attachments, I noticed it's horrid jitter alot more. With Grip and comp with x2, I was able to keep the thing on target no issue. Flare is like the VS Gauss SAW in terms of handling and loadout attachments.. it gets alot of options, but only 1 is really worth while.
If that applies to Flare, then it also applies to GSS and EM6 which are nearly identical with Flare... in which case Flare is more like a VS GSS than a VS Gauss SAW
I think at longer ranges the Ursa actually picks up the Slack. With no pretense of even trying to be good in CQC, it has great projectile velocity, all the right attachment options for the job, and controllable recoil. Also, it looks better, and isn't that what counts? The more often I look at the Flare, the more I'm irritated at it's apparent lack of any strengths. I mean, if it had an 80 round magazine, or 0.1 second shorter reload, or 5 meters more min damage range, I could say "there! That's it's strength!", as tiny as it would be. So far, it just seems like you pay for attachment flexibility in power. Which is a moot point as you can't exchange them without a terminal.
With SPA you can give it the 5 meters more min damage... and you should absolutely do that. Also, with ex-mags you increase the mag size to 150 which is like 10 seconds of continuous fire before reloading. I'm not joking when I say that the Flare has no business getting HVA as an option since it's a horrible gun for accuracy beyond close range, but if you set it up for close range with SPA, ex-mags, compensator to help with the vertical recoil, and a close in sight it becomes an absolute monster.
SPA increases the max damage range. I know you can get a bunch of options, but other factions just get better weapons.
It looks like he doesn't use anything. Based on his stats I'd say he either ignores long range targets if they're not tactically significant at the time, calls out their location for fellow long-range teammates to dispatch, and/or moves closer and then kills them w/ the Orion.
Only thing that really needs to happen is for two of our LMG's to have .35 stand/move ADS bloom (both the Orion and SVA-88 had it but when .75 ADS was nerfed they removed it) since we're the only empire without any guns with that anymore, slight tweeks to our attachments, and very minor buffs to the LSW and Flare. Give the Pulsar LSW and Ursa .35 stand/move ADS bloom, remove HVA from the Flare and buff it's reload time (no reason it has worse accuracy than the TMG-50 but the same reload time when that's kind of a VS trait), add HVA & compensator options to the Pulsar LSW and buff it's FSRM, and change the forward grip to an adv. grip on both the Ursa and Pulsar LSW. This gives the VS two distinctly different short range LMG's with the Orion & Flare, two distinctly different short to medium range LMG's with the SVA-88 & Polaris, and two distinctly different medium to long range LMG's with the Ursa and Pulsar LSW.
I entirely agree that LSW and Ursa would require stande/move 0.35 CoF to better fill their role. It's too bad that the Ursa doesn't get that, seing as it gives up raw dps for better control. The NS-15 is much better at that role right now, in my opinion. Not to sure about the need for HVA+compensator for the LSW though: the LSW seems like a beginner-friendly weapon that ended up being not so friendly: 0.35 CoF+ a milder first shot multiplier( 2.45, should be 2.0) would suffice to make it the weapon it was supposed to be. As for adv.Forward grip, why not. I noticed we don't have any LMG with it right now, same as with 0.35 stand/move CoF.
Eidolon /thread. (Its so supperior to Ursa, which is improved expencive Flare, cmon its such big difference in reliability, precision and performance as well in complexity of perform sucessive headshots) Who need that jumpy recoil automatic Flare if he can buy reliable semi-automatic BR for same price which performs better in every aspect?
Been using both Ursa and Eidolon recently... Eidolon feels much better. I do better with Eidolon as engineer than with Ursa as HA. Awesome weapon. Somehow, I like it more than the statistically equivalent TR counterpart, it's probably the sexy sound effect.
Personally, I don't like to use semi-Automatics because of rampant RSI. Technically it's better, but I prefer the automatics. I probably also burst too long, but I guess that's just laziness on my part.
The Eidolon isn't entirely statistically identical to the Warden/AMR-66. It has 30 m/s less velocity (inconsequential really) and no bullet drop... which for once is actually really handy on a VS weapon, as it really helps the Eidolon get headshots at mid-to-long ranges.
I def. prefer the Flare over the Ursa - but either of them are great. Flare works well with grip, SPA (just equip it on every gun available, no downsides and 2x sights. Like you said, the recoil bounce is just too much with higher magnification. Also HVA works quite well if you wanna go medium range only. But like people said, both flare and ursa are inferior versions of what other factions have due to the blanket nerf that hit VS LMG's hard.
Maybe it's just me, but the recoil animation on the Eidolon feels a little smoother than the Warden or AMR-66 too even though the values are the same. I could be slightly biased in this matter though...
That what my point was: While Flare and Ursa inferior to their other factions counterparts, Eidolon supperior to other factions counterparts, because of that change which allow precise aiming on quite long for this gun ranges, aiming "on the run" and generally wins long range LMG with it's viability for CQC hipfire (if forced to it). The only gun i really regret for buying it is Ursa (mainly because it's cost), too bad i discovered Eidolon after it.
In terms of visuals, it's Warden > Eidolon > AMR-66. For audio, Eidolon > Warden > AMR-66. The Eidolon's sound is so quiet even unsuppressed it's hard to make out where it's coming from, making it a nice subtle killer. The Warden's got that awesome pop-pop sound. The AMR-66 looks and sounds like a paintball gun... unless you suppress it, whereupon it sounds like a stapler.
