Banshee and Ravens nerf were confirmed by Higby Pls, which weapons should be rebalanced next?

People need to just calm down and accept that the game is farm or be farmed...kills provide certs, certs get you more things to kill with, etc...

The problem is that certs reward very selfish gameplay. Cert gain should increase the more you support your team.

Leaders need more tools too make organizing large amounts of random people much easier. Map icons, countdown timers, Notification pop-ups (A squad leader wants the squad to regroup, so he clicks a button that forces a pop-up to all squad members stating "Regroup on Squad Leader?" or "Super awesome tactical drop?" and a yes or no option.

Outfits of the same faction need better ways to determine what kind of role might be necessary at any given moment. Perhaps some kind of outfit alliance so you can work very easily with outfits that you trust (For tactics and such). So lets say an outfit is trying to accomplish some kind of task, but those jerk Banshee (lol) farmers are causing them some serious trouble. I could then get my group to clear them out, and move on with whatever else we were doing.

So yes, even PPAs could be OP as they were, if you knew you could rely on good outfits to bring the proper counters. There is so much potential for a proper, combined arms game that revolves around teamwork and coordination...instead of this weird, disconnected, farm fest called redeploy side.

All AV weapons? Including the dalton?
Or only infantry AV weapons?

Thanks for the info. I'll hold off on buying the ravens. Though it doesn't really matter since I don't like playing with the skillsuit anyways.

TMG-50 seems a pretty good mid-range weapon, no? It isn't 600 rpm, but the first shot recoil multiplier for example is quite lower. The EM-6 doubles as a short range option, like TR has the Carv for a high capacity, high RoF weapon. Versus the MSR-W (Anchor) for a more "assault rifle-LMG". Now, of course the EM6 is better at range than the Carv, and has a higher effective range.. then again, there is something to be said for high RoF for short range...
Re-looking at the 143-652rpm weapons (and actually, also some of the 698 ones) should give the VS/TR better mid-range performance, and most importantly perhaps, some options, besides "TMG-50". (and even some of the NC weapons, like the EM1, would be buffed)

a toned down shotgun is pretty close to worthless I'm afraid. there's already plenty of threads of NC using the ravens for AI, and TR use the pounders...

Really? I find comets easier to use due to the non-drop. The default VS max can fire both weapons at the same time vs infantry that isn't a nose-length away, including enemy maxes; making a 1comet, 1 AI weapon setup okay. Against enemy aircraft making an attack run on you, you can also fire back with 1 flak, 1 comet. (and yes, I've hit ESF's with the comet. Probably not the most skilled pilots, but still.. I don't think I've ever hit an aircraft with the Falcon, but I don't use maxes often anyway (and when I do, it is most often flak-time))
I don't know what you would want to give.. certainly not more damage IMO, and absolutely not "splash damage".
maybe 3 rounds/mag, or buffing the accuracy slightly, or a buff to muzzle velocity...?
Is it at range or at short range that in your opinion the comets under perform?

For being the "longer ranged" version of the pounders, it is interesting they have lower accuracy. (Same as the comets; higher velocity but bullet drop; make accuracy 0.1, instant max speed and I'd suspect they'd perform quite well without a dps increase.

Question is, against what.
Personally I think I'd be fine with giving the Heat rounds a lethal range of 0.75 or 1m, and the HE 1.5m.
Carefull with the prowlers though, the explosive damage they dish out is > 50% of vanguard/magrider per shell, and they get two attempts to direct-hit infantry.. make it deal 50% of splash, please.

Give heat a shorter damage area, but make it deal damage of the AV grenade type. (lower direct hit damage): indirect hits would deal some damage to vehicles, but I'm mostly suggesting it as an anti-max option. I'm not a fan myself..

Buffing them against some vehicles:
making them more lethal against harassers and sundy's. (internal spalling,..); a heat vehicle would be sundy-hunting. Perhaps heat should also perform the same (or have the same damage multiplier; perform closer to) as Ap rounds vs a lightning.

Dunno if this is really considered balance, but the NC SMGs have a ridiculously quiet sound profile without a suppressor put on it. This as well as the VS battle rifle/scout rifle audio are in the same shape with a suppressor. Possible change pl0x?

The basic problem isn't really a fixed distance, it's the difference in render distance for different types of units. So instead of just limiting weapon range it would be better if they fixed the rendering so you could still use your guns at long range but you could expect to be shot back at.

TMG-50 is just not as good simple as that. There is no circumstance I can think of where if I had both as an option, I'd pick a TMG-50 over the EM6. The higher RoF and magazine size of the EM6 completely outweigh the few very minor advantages TMG-50 has. And same goes for EM6 vs. the VS's Flare.

Both EM6 and Anchor are much more accurate than MSW-R and CARV while only being slightly behind in TTK. MSW-R and CARV have only a very small advantage at close ranges but past that they're way worse. I would be fine with NC getting a 750 RoF LMG if TR/VS had access to the 167/600 tier which is much more versatile than any of our 143 dmg tier options.

Yes, although it's hard to balance them as longer range options since they're inherently at a disadvantage due to bullet drop off being mostly tied to damage tier - all 143 guns drop off earlier. Plus higher bullet damage is just better at range. If you made up for that with better DPS then they'd end up overpowered. Fewer of our mid-long range guns should be low dmg/ low vertical recoil sustained damage style pea shooters.

NC thought toned down shotguns would be worthless the first time they were nerfed. Turned out they were wrong and NC MAX is still at the top when it comes to stats like KPH/KPU and so on. Of course, I'm sure the range limitation factors in and NC MAXes aren't pulled for the same fights that VS/TR MAXes.

Whatever the case, many NC don't like the range limitation, while many TR and VS are sick of NC MAXes easily gibbing them indoors. Maybe a win/win is just going the homogenization route in this particular case.

It's at short range that I find them weak. The TR/NC first gen have greater differences to their second gen and are closer range but higher damage. I think Comets and Vortex are a little too similar, and also that Comets are the weakest as a versatile AI/AV option. A few QoL tweaks to the Comets would do a lot for them - I'd improve velocity and fix the wonky convergence to start with.

Part of the problem with TR though is that we keep getting ES weapons where we don't have anything particularly unique or interesting to them. Fractures being higher RoF Ravens without guidance is just boring. Higher RoF and lower damage per projectile is not a fun or interesting "trait" to apply to all our ES stuff while VS/NC have unique mechanics. Plus at long ranges Ravens and Vortex will still just be better due to their mechanics, and TR is really lacking at long range AV right now.

Against infantry, mainly. Right now there's not much reason to pull HEAT when it's so bad against infantry you may as well just use AP. And I think HE could use larger splash radius, if HEAT gets buffed.

Of course, as I said, this would lead to more infantry farming if we didn't have better base design. It's a big problem with all vehicle AI right now, bases just allow them to farm too easily.

********. The reason we have infantry farming is because infantry poses virtually no threat to vehicles. The only thing vehicles need to pay attention to is to occasionally repair after eating the odd rocket, or watch out for C4 fairies, who have a failure quota of an estimated 80%.

We already have the most ridiculous base designs purposefully trying to make it hard to just farm infantry in vehicles. This crap does not go anywhere.

Infantry farming stops the second infantry becomes a legitimate threat to vehicles - like it should be.

One rocket launched in the ***, or two to the side? Your tank is gone. Harasser hit by a dumbfire? DEAD. A lock on to the face of your ESF? Burning. That flying tank called the Liberator? Two rockets and it's burning. Small arms immunity on aircraft? What an absurdity!

Then we will have stopped infantry farming. Vehicles are no longer the farming pwnmobiles but have to be used tactically, with support, carefully. Because they are still useful. They just aren't the 60:1 KD spawn camping cert machines that ruin the game for everyone else.

Conversely, we can have effective AI solutions on vehicles, and instead of blasting a dude 3 times with a bulldog, one time suffices onces again. Lethality on both ends must be increased. If a vehicle can instagib an infantry with near infinite ammo at huge ranges, infantry must be able to instagib tanks, if more limited by ammo and range constraints.

What we have right now, is hilariously lethal infantry gameplay, to the point where it gets nerfed more and more until tank shells to the face will no longer kill anyone, while rocket launchers (that in real life instagib tanks) do so pitiful damage most people rather just suicide charge with C4 for the off chance of actually killing the ******.

Ah, man. Why "change" something when you can leave it alone and improve something else? Instead of nerfing the Raven, buff the Vortex and the Fracture, etc. I'm scared of what they might do to the Lancer, because that's what many people are focusing on now.

A few minutes ago I saw a HA putting down his rocket launcher and started running towards a sunderer with c4. There were others nearby that might have done the same. Quite funny point. Infantry preferring suicide bombing over using AV weapons. Btw your view that vehicles are too powerful is in the minority. All I hear on forumside is that vehicles are too weak. That infantry kill them with ease. Vehicles are only good at spawn camping a defeated opponent.

People don't call things overpowered because it's relative to the others weapons, it's relative to the overall TTK in the game. If you raise the others you raise more weapons above the intended TTK and AKPH and such.

Where does that leave things like the gaus saw S, the GD-22-S, ..
577 rpm are excellent mid-range weapons; IMO of course. Maybe the GD-22-S leaves me biased here, but it really is a quite good weapon.
If NC get a 750-143 LMG, then faction diversity is essentialy: NC gets a gaus Saw. (repeat on other weapon categories; where that is already often the case. Assault rifles are an exception).
That said, as the "long range" TR weapon, give the TMG-50 also 630m/s velocity, like the gauss Saw S, giving a 100 round mag to TR of all factions is fine for me too; or do something weird and give a 90 round magazine etc.
There are some other differences between EM6 and TMG 50: according to the spreadsheet the TMG 50 is a bit faster to re-equip (after firing of a rocket for example), etc.
The EM6 has one of the slowest muzzle velocities for a LMG at 570 m/s, and a high-ish first shot recoil multiplier.
I really don't think balance is so far of that TR & VS need a 600 rpm weapon.

"drop of earlier": 65 vs 75m for LMG's.
It doesn't matter enormously I think..
theoretically speaking: at 10m, 750 rpm and 600 rpm are about equal presuming 100% accuracy. Mis one, and the 750 rpm one wins. Headshot, the 600 rpm one wins.
Now, we fight at 11m. They now need equal headshots;
and for bodyshots, both need 1 extra bullet. But the 750 rpm weapon shoots of that extra bullet faster.

I suspect the issue with the 652 rpm weapons isn't the low dps, it is a combination of having no better accuracy and the hit detection.

Giving maxes a 1.25x scope (like vehicles) could be interesting, and some better accuracy on the low dps max weapons;
if maxes get longer-ranged (medium ranged, really) AI weapons, the first-generation AI weapons should be nerfed for AI however. (looking at you, pounders..). That also means comets don't get a "AI /allrounder" buff.

wonky convergence? Did I miss something?
Interesting: it is at short range you find them weak; they are too similar, yet you'd improve velocity..
to me too, improving velocity seems an option, but this would not have a big impact for short range surely? Increase magazine size by 1, slightly better accuracy?
I can agree I think that double comet is "weak" as AI: no "1 hit" like the NC max with falcons, no guided ravens;
no 4 shots/magazine & less splash than TR pounders; and here, due to non-drop, "splashing" onto infantry is actually difficult often.
But, as I mentioned: if you bring 1 Comet, 1 AI weapon, you can fire of both quite effectively down a hallway: no drop.
IMO, of course; I don't play maxes a lot. I'm usually the dude with the ML and AV grenade (which now sticks )

Part of the Problem with NC though is that we keep getting ES weapons that are a shotgun.
Shotguns are not a fun or interesting "trait" to apply to all our ES stuff while..
Part of the Problem with VS ithough is that we keep getting ES weapons that are charge-up weapons.
Charge-ups are not a fun or interesting..

More faction diversity, and more interesting traits for all. I'm a bit surprised VS get the 'battery' mechanic for their directive rewards. In that case, TR and NC should get some unique mechanic on their faction weapons too.. or on some other weapons.

Heat one-shotting within 1m-ish: yep. (and I'd increase HE's splash damage to 1500 within 1m, so it does more than eat an engineers shields whilst he repairs a sundy with max flak armor, and then switches to the other side of the sundy...
"Jack! are you OK? that tank shell just hit inches over your head" 'Yeah, it's cool, lets just repair from the other side.. hey Bill, if the next round hits me, could you rezz me?"

Aaand a ++ on the better base design.
In fact, different map design too; AV turrets from one base reaching out to the next; terrain that can be traversed but is simply a pain to do and can flip your tank..

So nerfing is the only way? I don't want to think of nerfing as a solution!

Weapon a b c does the same job. A and b have the right lethality. C has the wrong lethality because it's more powerful than a and b. Nerfing c is therefore the solution.

Faction diversity for VS and TR is already very small differences, I don't see the problem with NC just getting the 200 dmg tier while TR get their 125 dmg tier and VS have their odd collection of no bullet drop and faster reloads and so on.

Right now NC has the best diversity overall which needs to change.

And I still stand by what I said on the TMG-50, there are no circumstances in which I would ever choose it's small advantages over the EM6's much more substantial ones - the RoF difference especially since it makes a big difference with higher damage bullet weapons. TMG-50 would need significantly better accuracy(advanced grip, like Pulsar C vs. Merc) to make it worth it and even then I'd still favor the 600 RoF most of the time for better versatility. This goes for pretty much all 167/600 vs. 167/550-577, really.

It's the DPS (TTK) as well. You are heavily penalized at close ranges whereas guns like Mercenary, Em6, Gauss Rifle aren't paying such a heavy price for their accuracy.

I don't think maxes should get scopes. Nerfing AI potential of AV weapons would also be tricky as it'd make first gen near obsolete vs. second gen in some cases. The reason people pull first gen AV is more versatility/ AI potential and to deal with MAXes. I don't agree with going that route, the AV weapons aren't that good at AI compared to actual AI weapons. I might be biased though being a Pounder MAX most of the time - but that might change if TR's AI weapons were better.

Their velocity is slow even at close ranges. It's hard to hit a target twice in a row sometimes just because of how slow.

And yes, you are missing something(your target!), comets have convergence which means the projectiles aren't always striking the same place. They converge at a certain point which means at closer ranges there's a gap between them which can cause misses.

NC still has the most unique/interesting ES stuff that's actually worth using. NC gets TV guided rocket, wire-guided rocket, shield on tank/MAX which are more substantial than most of TR and VS's ES stuff. VS's vehicles are their main unique feature, TR is mostly just boring RoF increases and/or things that make you a stationary target.

The shotgun trait is also actually not bad some of the time. Yes, canister isn't great, but Air Hammer and Jackhammer are both strong weapons. Jackhammer is definitely better than VS and TR's ES heavy weapons.

Instead, adjust ESF resistance so all MBT cannons OHK ESFs (excluding all HE variants)

If an ESF is flying low and predictable, or the MBT lands a magic skill shot on a fast moving ESF, this should result in death. It's silly that Magriders aren't rewarded for these shots. Nothing sadder than landing one of those difficult shots and watching the ESF fire suppress and have like half health a second later.

I want to agree, then I think back to that couple of days last winter where they buffed COF and DPS on Basilisks and I cringe. My little squad must have taken down 200+ liberators during those few days. A Basilisk Battlebus was the most powerful vehicle in the game, and these weren't even that huge of buffs.

Because they recently stated that they want to "reduce the excessive lethality" in this game. It's much more reasonable to change the outliers when it comes to performance than to alter the two weapons that are performing relatively similarly. Why put the added work in buffing weapons that are performing equally, not knowing if these buffs will make one of these balanced weapons more powerful than the other, when you can target the single weapon that sits outside the average performance stats and clearly and easily bring it to par with the majority performance level? Same goes for underpowered weapons. It is far more reasonable to focus your efforts on the single problem child than attempt to understand why all the other weapons in the game are over performing compared to it. It's the same mentality
Using the 'buffs only' mentality would require we bring every weapon in the game up to par with the select few weapons that are "OP", but in order to do it the PS2 way they all need to be different, with NC weapons still feeling NC, TR weapons still having all the bullets, and VS guns still being VS, etc. They'd be spitting to the wind and hoping that their changes work, because if they don't they've messed up balance bad.

Ironically, I'd expect precisely a HE weapon to trash a flimsy aircraft.
Against a light aircraft, you could hope a sabot round would fly through and take out something unnecessary. (like a wing, in case of a 150mm round )
a HE shell, set to detonate on impact? Yeah, you're gonna be picking of pieces of aircraft everywhere.
Even without shrapnel, the sudden blastwave is gonna send those wings flying, shock the engines outside of the aircraft, etc.

In fact, the same argument against a liberator: a real sabot or HEAT weapon: sure it would penetrate. But it isn't beyond the realms of possibility to "compartmentalize" the interior, so a section of aircraft is taken out, but who cares if a piece of hull is really, really, really penetrated. (answer: the pilot if its his section , or hits fuel etc.. still, loss of plane likely, and if not you better be landing that thing)
a proper HE tank round hitting an aircraft: instead of a copper beam spreading and taking out a compartment, the shrapnell will pretty much make holes everywhere. Thanks to the blast, pieces of aircraft become shrapnel themselves.

Ladies and gentlemen: give us 120- 150mm flak.

Eh, what? Last time I checked my barely certed mosquito was so much easier, more maneuverable and faster than my Reaver.