[Suggestion] Change the anchor

You must realize, taking general stats is not a good way to make a point. As others pointed out you have differently skilled people using different weapons. You have people like Demigan who still can't grasp this simple concept. Please don't be like this.

The best test (in ideal world) would be to take 5 vs 5 teams of same-level skilled people. Give Anchor to one team and some LMG to the other. Watch which team performs better...

Since you can't do that, you would need to take Anchor and get a couple hundreds kills with it. Then you can sparingly play with your original LMG and Anchor. After this you might compare and your opinion would be much closer to the truth than general stats comparison!

PS this works similar as stat boosting. If you farm easy targets or use OP weapon, your KDR and SPM goes up. But your skill doesn't. Who is more skilled? An aggressive sniper with 2.5 KDR or 10 KDR tank camping farmer? It's not an analogy, but it's the same way of creating a wrong opinion based on general stats...

The Orion, MSR-W and Anchor are each empire's CQC LMG. They all share the same role. Why would you not compare them directly?

The SVA-88, on the other hand, is an all-rounder like the EM-6 and Carv-S. Comparing the Anchor to the SVA-88 is like comparing the SAS-R to the XM-98. Two different weapons meant to fulfill a different roles.

Now the OP may have cherry picked over-all stats instead of the top percentile of users, but he is indeed comparing the proper weapons.

Here's why you are wrong, in any statistical analysis you try your best to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. So you want to compare a CQC weapon to it's counter-part from the other empire's, as their use should be similar. It's not always an easy task, such as the case we have here, because one is a starter weapon, and the other are not, and new users will seriously skew the data of the starter weapon.. So to clean up the data you throw out the data that has the greatest variation and use the data that better represents a typical user, in this case the top 25% of users of each weapon, because at that point the users should be statistically very similar in their skill level with the weapon. If you are going to balance weapons, this is the best data to use for such a comparison, because then you are comparing data of the best users, who will give the most consistent performance with the particular weapon.

Directive weapons present a bit of a problem, as they can't be directly compared to each other since they have vastly different roles. Also, we don't know if the developers means to simply make them a better version of their non-directive counter-part. So the only real comparison to make is whether or not the directive weapons is a direct upgrade of it's non-directive counter-part, then to determine if that is what was intended for these reward weapons. Then balance them accordingly.

By the OP's logic the SVA-88 could do with a nerf to then since it outperforms the EM-6 and Carv-S



(Cherry Picking)

Lel VS complaining of an other empire LMG OPnss

They also push the very best of the best out of one weapon and into the correlated directive weapon, which again helps to skew the numbers...

Is the Beteguese that superior to the Orion that it has a KPU of 54.21 (FYI top of all LMG's) compared to the Orion @ 12.45 KPU. No, as others have pointed out the Orion suffers from starter weapon itis and the Beteguese is on the other end of the spectrum, being used by the most veteran of veteran players, thus that is what is reflected in its KPU, just like the Anchor.

Ehm the gd-22s on the line with orion and msw-r. They are free or 100 certs. Anchor is 1000 so mjah reason why you say anchor is like that is cus nc has 2 small lmgs in there arsenal while tr and vanu has 1 both (excluding directive weapons). Make up your mind before comparing and you say fast reload on anchor ehm ok? It maybe has the longest reload time per bullet on the nc side so ye.

The anchor is still a CQC weapon so the comparison stands, and cert cost has never been a justification of nerfing or buffing a weapon they are evaluated in regards to their peers. Just because I replied to this thread doesn't mean I support a nerf, none of my posts even suggest that I do.

Did i say i want to nerf or buff it then? I dont think so im just saying that many points said in this thread are wrong.
The anchor is fine but its not outperforming the orion or msw-r to make a buff/nerf for it.

Each faction has access to 2 "CQC" LMGs, classified here by tight hipfire CoF. TR (MSW-R) and NC's (GD-22S, Anchor) CQC LMGs all have a min/max angle and degrees of randomness, giving them a right bias and truly specializing them for CQC. This is also how the VX29 Polaris, Vanu's other CQC LMG, is set up.

The problem is that the Orion, which is supposed to be a CQC LMG (small hipfire CoF), has 0 degree min/max, 0 degree of randomness and no bias. Instead, this bias mechanism goes to the Pulsar.

It's also important to note that the T32 Bull, TR's other tight hipfire CoF gun, gives up 100 RPM (compared to the Orion) for the same benefit.

Imagine if your Anchor and MSW-R all of a sudden had the recoil of the CARV and EM6 (not exactly, but close enough) and you didn't have to drag your mouse to the left all the time. Imagine if you didn't have to burst fire the Anchor and MSW-R for midrange.

For more information on how this works, see this thread. To summarize, a difference between min/max angle will widen the grouping of bullets within the CoF, causing unpredictable recoil as well as dropoff in effectiveness over distance. A nonzero angle will give the weapon bias to a certain direction. If the difference between min and max angle is 0, then the gun has the tightest grouping possible within the CoF.

I'm just providing a mathematical explanation of why the Orion/Betelgeuse is so well performing. In the end it's up to the user to make the gun more accurate by compensating for recoil, but there is also a limit to how effectively you can accomplish that.

That's good information, but you're only looking at a small piece of the puzzle. Horizontal recoil and Horizontal Tolerance both have a greater effect on a weapon's ADS accuracy than any variance that may be present in the recoil angle, for all but the worst of cases - e.g. the VX6-7, which has a 10 degree variance (20-30 degrees)..

And the weapons with both the worst horizontal recoil and horizontal tolerance are: CARV, Orion, and SVA-88. I listed each factions CQC LMGs below, in order of their ADS accuracy. Anchor is the most accurate, and the CARV and Orion are about the same.

Anchor
Horizontal Recoil (min/max): .175/.175
Horiztonal Tolerance: .4
Recoil Angle Variance: 2 degrees (18-20)

MSW-R
Horizontal Recoil (min/max): .225/.225
Horiztonal Tolerance: .55
Recoil Angle Variance: 3 degrees (17-20)

SVA-88
Horizontal Recoil (min/max): .2/.225
Horiztonal Tolerance: .9
Recoil Angle Variance: 0 (vertical)

CARV
Horizontal Recoil (min/max):.21375/.21375
Horiztonal Tolerance: .9
Recoil Angle Variance: 0 (vertical)

Orion
Horizontal Recoil (min/max): .2/.225
Horiztonal Tolerance: .9
Recoil Angle Variance: 0 (vertical)

Other factors which influence a weapon's accuracy which are average to bad on the Orion are the FSRM, stationary ADS COF and moving ADS COF. Other factors that can contribute are the vertical recoil,hipfire COF, recoil recovery (decrease), COF bloom, muzzle velocity. Iridar expanded on his thread you linked and covered all of the recoil mechanics we're aware of here: http://ps2guides.besaba.com/mechanics#recoil_mechanics

I guess my point is that there's a lot more to a weapon's accuracy than just the recoil angle, which plays only a minor role.

DON'T. TOUCH. MY ANCHOR.

DON'T. TOUCH. MY. SVA-88.

You're comparing here the horizontal tolerance between the guns, right? Then this video helps understand what it actually means, more than your link which only shows speculation:



The video demonstrates that the horizontal tolerance starts to take effect after around ~20 shots of sustained fire at 1.0 during hipfire. At that point you have already killed whoever you need to kill in CQC, and burst firing completely negates this effect. Also, the difference between 0 and 1 tolerance is minimal until that point; the same should hold for any values in between.

Moreover, you also show the horizontal recoil min/max. Comparing the Orion to the MSW-R, I think the TR does have a right to complain here.

Moreover the effect of angle variance on horizontal recoil is exacerbated by the vertical recoil value. Here both the Orion and Anchor have 0.4 while the MSW-R has 0.35. Again, this adds to the "randomness" and "janky" recoil of the Anchor, which I can clearly feel because I'm trying to auraxium this gun right now. Switching over to my favorite guns (SAW S and the SAW), the ADS aim is like night and day.

Again this demonstrates the "no compromise" side of the Orion whereas the other guns have certain tradeoffs. Looking at the nitty gritty of what makes up each LMG, I think a fair change to the Orion would be a angle min/max of -1°/1° (no bias, but variance of 2°). Not a straight up nerf like the removal of 0.75 ADS, but a small tweak here and there to put the Orion in its intended class.

The Anchor certainly does not need a nerf.

We all know the Saw S is the true hipfire beast.

EDIT: After writing this post I found the other thread you started on the Orion/BG, so I may just put any further comments over there..

I was comparing the H.Tolerance, H.recoil, and Recoil angle variance between the weapons. The Anchor is the most accurate by far during ADS, first because of its low H.recoil, and second because of its low H.Tolerance. It also has the tightest ADS COF both standing and moving, and slower COF bloom (hip and ADS) over time, which also helps.

Awesome video. I hadn't seen that before, so thank you. It demonstrates what we'd already hypothesized and tested re: H.Tolerance.

20 shots? Try maybe 4-6. Watch @ 2:34 when he shoots the second burst @ 50 H.Tolerance with 632 rounds in his mag.. Within the first 6 shots his H.recoil has already jumped farther to the right side than what his initial bursts @1:57 with a H.Tolerance of 0 would allow.

Who said anything about hipfiring in CQC? I was talking about ADS accuracy, presumably at mid to long range, where these penalties to your accuracy are exacerbated and can be more easily seen.

And yes, burst fire mitigates the effects of H.Tolerance, just like it does H.recoil, v.Recoil, bloom, recovery, and a whole slew of other stats. But that comes with a hefty price. It reduces your effective DPS and effective TTK, and makes you more vulnerable to flinch since when you're not firing and flinching the other guy, you give him free reign to hit and flinch you.

At any given range, all else being equal the weapon that has to burst less and/or has the faster effective TTK, wins.

Try this out. Go to VR as VS. Go to the SE corner of the main platform and pull an Orion from the term there. Slap on a 3.4x scope and try to kill targets out in the field at about 70-80m and see how well you do. Now switch to TR and do the same thing, shooting at the same targets, but with an MSW-R +3.4x. Which one will kill faster? In experienced hands, it's the MSW-R, because of its lower H.Tolerance. And the Anchor will beat both - esp if you strafe at all while firing..

Yes, minimal in CQC. But CQC is an entirely different beast. H.Tolerance, H.Recoil, recoil angle, ADS COF and ADS bloom, FSRM, etc all have little no to effect in CQC. ALL LMGs are plenty accurate in CQC while ADSing.

No they don't. The MSW-R is still more accurate overall and has longer effective range than the Orion due to its lower H.Tolerance. And it has a bunch more advantages over the Orion: faster short relaods, faster long reloads, lower V.recoil, faster muzzle velocity, and access to Soft Ammo. The Orion has a lower FSRM, 3 degrees less angle variance, lower min. H.recoil, and the .75x ADS multiplier. Aside from the .75x that's pretty well balanced.

Very good point. I hadn't thought of the effect of V..Recoil.

However, the effect of angle variance on H.Recoil can be better or worse from shot to shot, depending on whether the horizontal component of the angle variance (relative to the previous shot's angle) is in the same direction or opposite direction of the horizontal recoil. They can in fact partially cancel each other out on any given shot, leading to a more accurate shot than if there was no angle variance.

RE: Anchor vs SAW vs SAW S. I don't know what attachments you use, but the SAW/SAW S have access to the compensator and Adv Foregrip but the Anchor doesn't. Couple that with you being used to weapons with 0 recoil angle and I can see where the Anchor might feel a little off. Its angle variance will make it slightly less accurate than the SAW/SAW S past 75m or so. But you're comparing it to two of the most accurate LMGs in the game. And without knowing your attachments or the range you're fighting at, it's hard to say for sure what you're experiencing.

The Orion has tradeoffs. I've already compared it to the MSW-R. But as I stated its tradeoffs don't come into play at the ranges the Orion is used, and they can be avoided by simply not engaging in firefights beyond a certain range.

And I can tell you right now that a -1/+1 recoil angle will do nothing to make the Orion any less effective at ranges where it's normally used.

Yes, I agree. As much as I hate fighting against it, I think the Anchor is fine as is.

Keyword "Can," The anchor is 1000 certs, not everyone will. The Orion however, literally every VS will have. And the MSW-R is only 100 certs, which may as well be free. Weapons with higher cert costs will usually have better performance on average because bad players will be far less likely to have access to them.