What's the Vanu weakness supposed to be?

See, you're looking at those numbers and it shows the Cycler and Pulsar are about equal in performance. If you're familiar with standard deviancy, a difference of 1% in your measurements like that is the same as saying there's no difference at all. In the most practical sense, the Cycler is a better CQC weapon because of its RoF, but the Pulsar is a better weapon at range because it has better accuracy, no bullet drop, and less bloom.

It's not an argument about which gun is most OP. Neither of them are OP weapons. They're both solid and they perform well, no complaints here. But the Cycler follows the TR trend of high RoF, large magazine, longer reload time, and less control at range to give you that "spray and pray" feel. Meanwhile, the Pulsar gets all the standard Vanu advantages, but for this case it's balanced by a lesser rate of fire. Lower RoF isn't really the Vanu weakness though, is it? I'm just saying, it doesn't really feel like the Vanu have a faction-specific drawback. They have faction specific perks, but for balance it really depends on the gun.

1. lowest damage per mag on most weapons (can brake your neck faster than a sligtly longer reload - looking at the carbines)
2. fastest damage drop of on nearly all weapons over range
3. slower muzzle velocity in most cases (forces you do lead more often)
4. no bulletdrop goes hand in hand with hardest first shot multiplier

No I understand standard deviation perfectly fine but ROFL if you don't think having a smaller magazine with a faster reload time is even close to being the same thing as a larger magazine with a slow reload time.

Furthermore, getting to the core of your agrument you can't really use the justification that the defaults for LMG's are about equal between factions because the SAW, CARV, and Orion will always be different because they are setup for different roles.

The SAW is a long range weapon, the CARV is a sustained fire weapon, and the Orion is a CQC weapon so it's really not fair at all to compare them against each other since LMG's have a much wider and varied role than AR's or Carbines though.

I mean if you compare the GD-22s, MSW-R, and Pulsar LSW (all cost 325 certs) the TR are the clear winner with the VS as the clear loser, yet no one ever brings that up since it's really obvious that those three weapons have clearly different roles or even compares them like you've done with the Orion, CARV, and SAW.

Instead you should be comparing the Orion to the MSW-R and Anchor... of which the Orion is actually the worst performing of the three at BR100.

Or to add on to this, the bottom line here where I say the Vanu guns are a little bit better is that you're seeing equal statistical performance between the Cycler and Pulsar. One is not vastly defeating the other and they're fine guns. However, the Pulsar reloads a little faster because Vanu guns simply reload faster.

You see what I mean? It's not some major thing. But they're all kind of like this. Yeah, the Cycler gets +10 bullets, but you've got to be dead accurate with those if you're going to squeeze one more kill out of them. The more rational thing to do is reload whenever you duck into cover since if you're playing right you frequently take cover, and the Pulsar simply reloads a little bit faster. Equal guns, pretty much, with a very tiny, almost completely negligible advantage towards the Vanu weapon because the Vanu advantages aren't really paired with a Vanu disadvantage.

It's not even significant enough to nerf. It's just a really weird trend I've noticed while doing research on the guns, thinking about how I'm actually going to use them. The Vanu equivalent is often just teency amount better, but my own faction's gun is basically just as good, so whatever. Most of the time, except with stuff like the Orion which carries all the advantages plus a few extra odds and ends, and due to a lack of factional disadvantage the Orion really has nothing holding it back.

I'm not sure where you're finding data that shows the Orion is performing worse among skilled players. According to stats I can find the MSW-R performs about equally to the Orion. They're almost the exact same gun, except that Orion has that 0.75 ADS thing going on. If the MSW-R has a major advantage, it's the softpoint ammo option.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

TR: 143x40 = 5720
NC: 167x30 = 5010
VS: 142x30 = 4290

Standard infantry have effectively 1000 health (HA have shields while infils have 900), but for this demonstration lets say you have to do 1000 damage to drop someone.

Pulsar would therefor require 23.4% accuracy to drop someone from full health, Cycler would need 17.5% accuracy to drop someone from full health, while the Gauss would need 20% accuracy to drop someone from full health.

Average accuracy for the Pulsar is 21.7%... or 1.7% lower than what's actually required to drop someone from full health with a the damage in it's magazine while the Cycler averages 2.7% over what's required to drop someone from full health with the damage from it's magazine and the Gauss averages 1.1% over what's required to to drop someone from full health with the damage from it's magazine.

The disadvantage of not even having enough rounds in your magazine to drop the average infantry at full health while maintaining that weapons average accuracy is massive, yet you're glossing over it like it's meaningless.

http://ps2oraclestats.com/monthlystats/

@ BR 100

Orion KPH: 47.64
MSW-R KPH: 51.32
Anchor KPH: 54.84

Orion KPU: 21.07
MSW-R KPU: 25.02
Anchor KPU: 29.85

It's cake. Cake is our weakness. It's alright for you luddites in your 20th century cargo pants but us in our fabulous Nanoflex combat suits - cake is the enemy.

I guess that's a fair counter-argument, but then where do you go from there given the Cycler and Pulsar show equal average TTK?

This is what you get for trying to transcend humanity. Punishment for your hubris!

What do you mean?

They don't have the same TTK when you factor in not even having enough damage per magazine to drop the average infantry player while you're maintaining average accuracy for that weapon since you're adding a 1.75 or 2.2 second reload time to that TTK or however long it takes to switch to your secondary.

Our weakness is obviously nerf threads duh.

Vanu? Weakness? Ha! What balderdash! The Vanu have NO weakness! We are superior, we are enlightened!

With all that spandex. Probably low sperm counts.

But seriously. The vs lack options. The few things they have are very unique. But because of that, they have fewer viable options.

It lacks, versatility. It's the reason everyone runs around with orions. I would say for each class they have 2-3 usable weapons. The rest are junk.

It's a reason I don't like being vs.

They have the lowest bullet velocity and generally have the least amount of ammunition in a magazine. Their MBT is the weakest of MBTs and for some unknown reason their main gun arches like a Deci.

Hmm, don't know about that... I've seen some buff heavy assaults that I would absolutely love to wreck with something other than my Gauss Saw...

Yet it outperforms the Vanguard in AV and both the Vanguard and the Prowler in AI.

Must be more of those MLG VS skills that win all of their alerts. Couldn't be their gear or anything.

I'm pretty sure the idea originally was that the trade off for the Vanu's great accuracy/ least bullet drop was the biggest damage drop off over distance, and then they got rid of it and made Vanu weapons like everyone else's, because people kicked up a stink over it. Another nail in the coffin of faction diversity.

Don't quote me on that, though. I haven't played in ages (internet infrastructure changes in my city make for an unstable connection) and didn't keep track of game changes that much anyhow.

I always thought personally that the Vanu's key infantry weapon trait should be the best max damage over distance, with a longer maximum damage range, coupled with the worst minimum damage over distance. So if you were to compare the three in a graph the TR and NC would steadily drop off as the distance to the target increased, whereas the Vanu stayed the same up to a point, and then massively bottomed out. Couple that with them being less apt at hipfiring and they perform reliably in the mid range to mid-long bracket but are outperformed at short range by the TR and at long range by the NC. Everyone has a niche that way.

The Vanu weakness is that they can't hold a point against a rush well. I'm gonna compare the Unholy OP of Vanu (Betelgeuse) to what is considered a lesser gun in the TR (Butcher). In this situation when large numbers of people are trying to swarm your point in a last ditch move to stop the cap. I know this is a completely unfair comparison with these two guns in this situation but this carries over to a lesser extent to all VS weapons due to their smaller magazines.

The Betelgeuse can easily stop 3 people when they come into the room, in rapid succession. However, if more people keep coming in, they have to revert to their pistol so it cools down. During this time of using a pistol, you aren't nearly as effective, then you can pull out your Betelgeuse and kill another 3-4 people. Wonderful, you killed 6-7 people with your main gun.

If I'm using my Butcher, I wouldn't even bother shooting at people, I'd shoot at the doorway, and watch as absolutely no one gets through for 12 seconds (it is a healthy choice not to walk into a doorway that has 12.5 bullets coming out of it every second). Even if I don't use suppressive fire, I can keep mowing down soldier after soldier, long past the point where a Betelgeuse would've stopped working.

This is an unfair comparison, yes, but with the Carv and Orion, the Carv has twice as much ammo and the same RPM. It shoots for twice as long. This is good. This shows that Vanu generally can't hold points as well. They are certainly capable, but not as good because they do have to reload often. They also have slightly lower TTKs than other factions, although the accuracy makes up for this.

Actually originally...damage drop off was HUGE...everyone had it but the VS had it really bad. Then, when they let larger numbers of people in beta and saw most combat was happening at distances twice what they had thought it would they scaled the damage drop off back a lot. Seriously at range...Vanu was better off throwing stones then using weapons. It had to happen due to the fact that the TR and NC could destroy any VS at any range beyond 25m. Which in and of it self didn't fit the fraction traits. Honestly they never really had an actual idea for just how to make stuff work in game.

Ah, i see.

Ah, I see. That sounds like would suck a great deal. As for not having any idea what they're doing... yeah. *sigh* ...yeah.