Are Vanu Weapons that bad?

carv/orion, it all just feels like dakka dakka when i use them XD
(though admittedly that isn't very often because i'm usually running lasher or MCG on my VS/TR heavies)

Ummm..... no. If you actually go check the weapon stats, VS usually has the highest horizontal recoil.....

pls tell me your weed dealer's number so I can be high like you.

VS has the highest horizontal and vertical recoil in this game. But hey that OP no bullet drop xD

Lolwut.

Compare any 3 ES weapons of the same category and you'll find that TR has the highest horizontal recoil. NC has the highest vertical.

Clearly you're too lazy / otherwise deficient to do it yourself, so here you go (obviously I'm not going to do every weapon for you, so I've picked on the highest and lowest per category, and have omitted areas where all empires are identical):

AR-NC-High : 0.8625
AR-TR-High : 0.816 (Cycler-TRV)
AR-VS-High : 0.8 (H-V45)

AR-NC-Low : 0.28
AR-TR-Low : 0.35 (SABR-13)
AR-VS-Low : 0.4 (Equinox B)

Car-NC-High : 0.625
Car-TR-High : 0.735 (Jaguar)
Car-VS-High : 0.7875 (Serpent)

Car-NC-Low : 0.28
Car-TR-Low : 0.4 (Trac-5B)
Car-VS-Low : 0.3 (Pulsar C)

LMG-NC-High : 0.7
LMG-TR-High : 0.9 (T9 Carv)
LMG-VS-High : 0.9 (Orion, SVA-88)

LMG-NC-Low : 0.4
LMG-TR-Low : 0.5 (T32 Bull)
LMG-VS-Low : 0.5 (Ursa)

Pis-NC-High : 0.3
Pis-TR-High : 0.6 (Amp)
Pis-VS-High : 0.5 (Spiker)

SMG-NC-Low : 0.7
SMG-TR-Low : 0.75 (Hailstorm)
SMG-VS-Low : 0.9 (All of them)

So... from this we can see that, with only one exception (High-RoF AR's), NC always has the best horizontal recoil. In addition, with only one exception (accurate carbines - don't even start with the pistol "exception" because a mini-SMG is NO comparison to the ****** Spiker!), TR are either better or equal to VS in terms of horizontal recoil - which is silly.... VS is billed as the "controllable" faction - and we pay for it in terms of lower damage and lower RoF compared to the other empires... and then we STILL don't get it!

So yes..... at least in terms of horizontal recoil, VS weapons ARE that bad!

I think you're smarter than TSE, so I'm not going to waste my time quoting all the stats, but while the VS generally has the worst horizontal recoil (and I proved it above), it's generally the NC with the worst vertical recoil.

Looooooooooool. You proved jack sht, just pulled numbers out of your ***. Way to throw in a personal insult there too, dipsht.

LMGs:
Carv (0.213/0.213), EM6 (0.175/0.175), Pulsar LSW (0.2/0.2)
MSWR (0.225/0.225), Orion (0.22/0.22), Anchor (0.18/0.18)

Carbines:
Trac 5 (0.225/0.225), Solstice (0.2/0.2), Mercenary (0.175/0.175)
Jaguar (0.243/0.273). Zenith (0.2465/0.2748), Bandit (0.2/0.2)
AMC (0.2/0.2), Pulsar C (0.175/0.175), ACX 11 (0.175/0.2)
Trac 5B (0.17/0.17). Solstice burst (0.16/0.16), GCB (0.14/0.14)

AR:
T1 Cycler (0.225/0.225), Pulsar VS1 (0.2/0.2), Terminus AR (0.2/0.22), Gauss rifle (0.175/0.175)
TAR (0.3/0.3), HV45 (0.3/0.3), GR-22 (0.25/0.275)
Same numbers for burst ARs as burst carbines

TR have the highest horizontal shake. That's the price we pay for our supposed "high ROF" faction trait which over time has been watered down and given to the other factions. The only exceptions to that rule that I found were Zenith having slightly higher shake than Jaguar (but then Zenith can equip an advanced grip while Jag can't so it evens it out) and Lynx having less shake than Serpent but then Lynx isn't exactly a traditional weapon in terms of PS2 weapons design anyway.

Jaguar compares to the VX6, not the Zenith, and the VX6-7's horizontal recoil is far worse than any TR carbine has thanks to not only a high horizontal recoil, but a very big angle variance and a 3x FSRM.
SMGs? Sirius has the worst horizontal recoil. It's a Vanu weapon. It's what you would get if you took an earthquake and gave it the form of a gun.
In LMG, TR wins with the MSWR.
Assault Rifles, tie between the TAR and HV45.

So out of the four classes of automatic infantry weapons, VS has two of the worst horizontal-recoiling weapons, TR has 1 and they're both tied on the last.

TR does have higher-than-average horizontal recoil by a small margin spread across a good portion of their weaponry, but VS have the official title of worst horizontal recoil.

Ah-hem.... Allow me to speak the language of your people.

Looooooollll! U no reading! No understanding is for sutpids.

As it happens, I pulled the numbers straight from the weapon stats spreadsheets. But given your apparent disregard for facts and logic, I can see how you might have confused the two.

Now... let's address your *bwahahahahahahaha*.... ahem. Excuse me. Let's address your cherry-picked "examples" in order.

First off, the Carv equivalents are not the EM6 and the Pulsar. The most accurate equivalents are the EM1 and the SVA-88. And second, the best single stat for horizontal accuracy is the tolerance, not the individual kicks. If you want to look at the individual kicks you have to look at the tolerance and the bias as well!

So:
Carv : 0.225, 0.225, 0.9, L&R
EM1 : 0.2, 0.2, 0.7, L&R
SVA-88 : 0.2, 0.225, 0.9, L&R

Conclusion : EM1 most accurate, Carv slightly better than SVA because it's recoil is consistent, while the SVA's is not. And while we're on the topic, the SVA is 52 RPM slower than the Carv as well.....

MSWR : 0.225, 0.225, 0.55, R
Anchor : 0.175, 0.175, 0.4, R
Orion : 0.2, 0.225, 0.9, L&R

Conclusion : Again, NC wins out. MSWR is a clear winner over Orion though. Firstly, it's recoil is more consistent, secondly, it's capped at HALF the tolerance the Orion is, and finally Orion has L&R shake rather than a straight right bias, making it even more unpredictable!

And just so we're clear on this one... The Orion has worse reload speeds, worse vertical recoil, fractionally better FSR, worse move ADS, better standing hipfire CoF (but who the **** STANDS STILL in CQC?!), worse moving hipfire CoF, worse crouch-moving CoF, and worse bullet velocity. So tell me.... how exactly is the MSWR NOT a direct upgrade to the Orion?!

Mercenary : 0.175, 0.175, 0.45, L&R
Trac 5 : 0.225, 0.225, 0.55, R
Solstice : 0.2, 0.2, 0.5, R

Congratulations. You have found ONE weapon where the VS has slightly less recoil than the TR. You have completely proved your point! I bow to your totally superior knowledge and wisdom!

I'm not sure I agree with the above posted that the VS Jaguar is the VX6, and you picked the Zenith, so let's go with that one. Also, I'm going to stop bothering with the NC stats here. You seem to only care about TR v VS anyway, so let's just go with that.

Jaguar : 0.243, 0.273, 0.735, L&R
Zenith : 0.2465, 0.2748, 0.782, R

Conclusion, the Zenith has worse horizontal recoil, worse tolerance but a better recoil pattern. I'm probably leaning slightly towards the Zenith here, but only because of stats you didn't even think worth of mentioning. So I'm not even sure that counts. Also, I'm biased towards VS.

First off, the AMC equivalent is not the Pulsar C. The Cougar is the TR's Pulsar C. But since not all weapons seem to have direct equivalents, let's go with your Pulsar C.

AMC : 0.2, 0.2, 0.45, R
Pulsar C : 0.175, 0.175, 0.3, L&R

So, purely on horizontal recoil, the Pulsar C is better. But as soon as you include bias, the AMC's pure right bias makes it A LOT more predictable (and therefore controllable) than the L&R shake of the Pulsar. Overall, I'm going to say that the AMC is substantially more controllable than the Pulsar.

Trac-5B : 0.17, 0.17, 0.4, R
Solstice B : 0.16, 0.16, 0.4, R

Yup. The Solstice is totally better than the Trac. By a 100th of ONE degree. This totally makes it an absolutely OP weapon compared to the Trac. Frankly, mate, this is just getting silly. Even when you cherry-pick examples, most of the time you're wrong, and even when you're not, most of the differences are marginal.... but hey. Let's continue this farce.

I'm not going to mention the Terminus, because it's a completely different class to the T1.

Cycler : 0.225, 0.225, 0.5, L&R
Pulsar : 0.2, 0.2, 0.7, R

So far, the Pulsar does look better than the Cycler. It's got a worse tolerance, but the other stats are better. Looking at the other stats, it seems fractionally better in terms of ADS accuracy as well. However, it's also more than 50 RPM slower. All in all, I'm probably going with the Pulsar here.

I don't think the TAR and the H-V45 are direct equivalents. The TAR is only the TR's third fastest firing, while the HV is the VS's fastest. But I couldn't find a better comparison, so let's roll with it.

TAR : 0.297, 0.297, 1, R
H-V45 : 0.3, 0.3, 0.8, R

Purely on horizontal recoil, the H-V45 looks a little better. Worse horizontal recoil, same bias, but better tolerance which limits the number of kicks. Again, the only reason H-V45 is winning out is a stat you didn't even think worth of mentioning. So, again, I'm not sure it counts.

Conclusion



So, when you took the liberty of cherry-picking your examples, we still come up with:
LMG: TR slightly win one and massively win another.
Carb : VS win one, VS fractionally win one, TR win one, and VS win another only because I included stats you didn't think were relevant.
AR : VS win both of these - both times because I included stats you ignored.

So, congratulations, I guess. But I'd like to point out two things:
1) If we go only on the stats YOU mentioned, your whole argument collapses, because your own numbers prove you wrong more than half the time, in your own cherry-picked examples! That, my friend, is how you lose an argument, and prove you've got no idea what you're doing.
2) Even when cherry-picking, and by completely ignoring all other factors, you didn't manage to prove VS are better everywhere! If you look at overall balance, which is what you should be looking at, I think you'll find that TR are not nearly as hard-up as you think. Look at my OP again... in terms of overall stats, TR are fine.

Thx for all the comments very interesting , Having played with my VS LA and Medic I can confirm the muzzle flash is not as bad outside the VR training room , I would also like to say I'm still not comfy with VS weapons baring in mind I'm not a great shot I am still struggling to down anything over 40m or so with 1 mag.
It just seems to me that TR weapons are well within my comfort zone there easy to aim and the 10 extra bullets per mag is huge for myself as its usually the difference for me winning a 1v1 or downing a guy at mid range.

Personally I have no clue on stats but judging by my own experience with VS weapons i just cannot see for the life of me where there advantages are apart from looking cool .
Don't get me wrong i would imagine some VS vets will tell me some of weapons are very good and i understand that but doesn't that come down to just being a better player overall.

Edgy.

Considered stopping reading right there because what's the point arguing when the opposition doesn't know what they're talking about. LSW/SVA swap is whatever, they're essentially the same gun with a different recoil pattern, but the NC's Carv equivalent is the EM1? Ok.

MSWR pulls to the right while Orion kicks straight up.

All the ones I mentioned follow the same pattern. If you took away the sarcasm and maybe threw in more some more understanding of how weapons handle, you would see that.

I don't either. Both Jag and Zenith are fast movement speed carbines, have identical hipfire stats, similar RoF and recoil stats. Yes, stock Zenith's recoil is higher than that of a stock Jaguar but a Zenith with an advanced grip has less shake than a Jag with a standard one.

I also care more about TR-VS comparison because that's what the argument's about, who has higher horizontal shake.

Noticed. Maybe if you took off your biased glasses and looked at the stats objectively, or heck, play with the actual weapons for 3-4 hours, you'll stop typing nonsense on the forums about how the Vanu have it worst. And they say TR has a victim complex.

All 3 are gen one mid-long range carbines, are they not?

2nd time I considered stopping reading. Not even going to bother.

Did I ever say anything was OP in my post? No I did not. Go fk yourself. I'm right in all the examples I mentioned. I do agree that the differences are marginal, but THEY ARE THERE. That's what all this is about, who has higher horizontal shake and the answer is TR. Never said it was by a lot, just the most. Will deal with the "cherry picking" nonsense in a further down reply.

Similar fire rate, similar recoil. Quite comparable actually. But fine, I see where you're coming from.

A good opportunity to touch on why I didn't mention horizontal tolerance (in case I haven't already). Horizontal tolerance is there to determine the maximum number of times a weapon will kick in a particular direction, the horizontal recoil determines how HARD those kicks will actually shake the weapon.

TR generally speaking has more of the latter, VS more of the former.

Pick your poison as to which is worse but what I found is that if RNG is not on my side and the weapon unexpectedly kicks multiple times in one direction, I'll end the burst short, re adjust my aim and re engage. How STRONG those shakes will be however, is something you can't really manage on your end. Aside from putting on a forward grip that is.

All the weapons I mentioned are ES analogues of each other. I didn't mention the 577/167 arsenal of weapons TR and VS have access to because they're watered down NC guns and don't have enough ES qualities to them to justify a comparison. Likewise for the 652/143 LMGs and assault rifles. The examples I picked were ES enough for the differences to be visible.

LMG: So SVA 88 has higher shake than the Carv? 3rd time I considered stopping reading. So close to finish, why do you do this.

Carbines: Hear hear, AMC has less shake than Pulsar C. This is so obviously wrong for anyone who spent more than 30 minutes with both weapons I don't even think I should explain why it's wrong.
ARs: Cool.

Thank you.

1. It does not. They proved me wrong zero of the times.
2. Overall balance is fine. What's your point? We were talking about which faction has the highest horizontal shake and the answer is TR. That's the whole argument.

Never said there was something wrong with TR weapons. We have the highest fire rates so we pay for it by having the highest horizontal shake. We have the largest magazine capacities so we pay for it with longer reloads. That's fine. More than fine, that's how asymmetrical balance works.

TR have the highest shake. Not by much in some cases but they still do.

If you want to continue that argument feel free. I've put forward everything I thought was necessary for the discussion. I will end by saying this, if you're not sure which weapons have higher shake, play with them and see for yourself. Even 10 minutes of shooting targets in VR should be enough to answer that question.

Ya know... I'm kinda thinking the same about you. Except that since the stats support me, I'm probably right.

The Carv is a 143 damage model, so is the EM1. The EM6 is 167. The Carv has the fastest RoF among TR LMG's, so does the EM1. The EM6 does not. With the exception of recoil (and the far less relevant reload times), pretty much all the rest of the stats are basically identical across all three. So, tell me again, how the EM1 is not the NC Carv?!

Yup. A consistent, rightwards pull can be compensated for. Random L&R shaking can't. Ergo, Orion has worse recoil. Like I said. Use your brain! And you still haven't countered how basically every single stat on the MSWR is equal or better to the Orion...

Ummm.... no, they don't. Even the stats you quoted don't support your position! And given how little understanding you've demonstrated so far, it you that has the problem, not me. Frankly, sarcasm is the ONLY appropriate response to this level of abbysmal ignorance!

Given that they're both high-movement CQC hipfire machines, if you're running grip rather than ALS, you're probably doing it wrong. Which, once again, means that Zenith has worse stats!

Again, you fail at logic... I'm biased towards VS. I think they're better - even when the stats disagree with me. So if I "took off my glasses", I would inevitably start rating the TR higher, not lower. Logics. Use them. And I'm not typing nonsense... I'm using the actual stats. It's you that doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between reality and your own opinion! You're not Donald Trump, are you?! You seem to have the same disregard for facts and logic and the same narcissistic superiority complex. And given how even your own, cherry-picked examples have blown up in your own face so far, I'm gonna say that it's you that has a victim complex.

The Cougar and the Pulsar are 167 damage models, the AMC is not. The recoil patterns are similar, but again, the Cougar is a lot closer to the Pulsar. The accuracies and bloom are similar, but again, the Cougar is much closer to the Pulsar. The AMC is a 650 RoF weapon with 570 mv, while the Cougar / Pulsar are in the 550-570 RoF range, with a 515-520 mv. So yes... the Pulsar and Cougar are far closer than the AMC.

So... once again, when "ebil facts" rear their ugly head, you bury yours in the sand?! Yes, the Pulsar C has slightly better movement than the AMC - 0.175 vs 0.2 and 0.3 vs 0.45. But the huge difference is that the AMC as a predictable, controllable righward-bias, while the Pulsar has unpredictable, uncontrollable L&R shake. So yes... the AMC IS easier to control and you're a moron if you can't see it!

Sarcasm. Learn it.

As I've proved, repeatedly, you're WRONG in about half the cases you mentioned! Quit living in some imaginary universe and get with reality. If I was prepared to waste any more time on you (which I'm not), I'm absolutely certain I can find plenty of examples that completely disprove your complaint (even if half your own didn't do it for you).

Alright. Let's ignore tolerance (which is silly, but if that's what you want.....).

TAR : 0.297 / H-V45 : 0.3

H-V45 is worse, therefore TR are better. Once again, your own argument has proved you wrong.

Which is exactly why you can't ignore tolerance, as you seem determined to do! As for the strength thing, it's the one thing you can compensate for - just like compensating for vertical recoil. What you can't compensate for is the direction of shake, which is why random L&R shakes are far worse for controllability than a consistent L or R pull.

Firstly, ignoring a big chunk of the weapons for no valid reason (and "not ES enough" is not a valid reason!), you're only demonstrating the weakness of your case. Further, by that argument, you should have ignored the H-V45, because high RoF is a TR trait, but you didn't. And even though you picked it, it supports the position that VS are worse than TR! Inconsistent, much?

As for the cherry picking, you DID do it. You ignored all the SMG's, even though TR is equal or better to VS there. You didn't select the TMG / Flare, which is odd, since they're basically identical except that VS has worse horizontal recoil. You didn't select the T16 / Polaris, which are virtually identical and have the same horizontal recoil. You didn't mention the Lynx / Serpent, where the VS have worse horizontal recoil. You also didn't mention the Terminus / TORQ combo, where once again, VS have worse recoil. You DID cherry-pick. And even then, your selections didn't consistently support your position.

You screwed up. You made bad arguments on worse data to desperately support an eroding position that you can't actually justify. And you got caught. Quit trying to weasel out of it.

Yup. The Carv moves by a consistent amount every time. Consistency equals controllability. The SVA moves by a random amount. Ergo, less controllable. Logic. Learn it.

No, the shake is slightly larger. But because it has a rightwards bias, it's easier to control than the random L&R shake of the Pulsar. THAT'S what I said. Read it again. And it remains true. The AMC is more controllable than the Pulsar.

I've proved, repeatedly, using the actual stats that your argument is completely bogus. You're just running around with a massive victim complex and you're applying the dodgiest logic to support your positions I've ever seen. Frankly, at this point, I'm amazed you can even turn your computer ON, let along post on the internet. You clearly have absolutely no idea what's going on, or how things work in game, and you just as clearly aren't interested in learning anything, so I'm done talking to you.

Feel free to reply, but I won't be answering it.

I still support that the Jaguar compares to the VX6.
The TR's two CQC carbines are the Jag and the Lynx. One has better hipfire, one has higher fire rate.
Similarly, the VS has two CQC carbines, the VX6 and the Serpent. One has better hipfire, one has higher fire rate.

Though the Zenith shares the .75 ADS modifier the Jaguar has, it does not have the same role. It's just a weird carbine with a weird combination of stats and is pretty much directly inferior to the Jaguar in almost every way.

This guy is a lost cause.

A few quick points because an elaborate multi-quote response to a dense moron such as yourself would be waste of labor:

- EM6 is NC's Carv. People who say the SAW is I also see where they're coming from. Both are general purpose LMGs. Good at cqc, good at mid, good at long, not particularly stellar at any of them. EM1 or all the 652/143 LMGs are carbon copy cross faction. EM1 is NC's answer to Rhino and Polaris. How someone can be stupid enough as to not see it is beyond me.

- It's down to personal preference but imo 0.75x ADS weapons benefit more from a grip than they do from a laser. These guns sacrifice so much for that extra 25% movement speed that you might as well take advantage of it. To take advantage of it, you're gonna be aiming down the sights, ergo grip.

- Horizontal recoil on SMGs is largely irrelevant. Especially on the SMGs where that recoil and rate of fire are super high. The high rate of fire SMGs are not competitive beyond 30 meters regardless whether one has 0.025 more shake per side.

- You're the only person I know who thinks angular recoil is better for a weapon to have than a purely vertical one. (MSWR>Orion, AMC>Pulsar C). Shows what an "expert" you are. More like juggling stats to fit your asinine theorycrafting BS- that Vanu guns have higher horizontal shake than TR ones.

I think the impression comes from weapons like the Beamer which suck so hard to use compared to lower rate of fire weapons the NC have and burst fire weapons like the repeater. It's right in the middle without the ease of use of the Repeater, nor the skill cap of a NC weapon that punishes you for missing shots and rewards headshots more.
I mean if you start out with the VS and you pick up a Beamer that's it, you're done you've already either bought an NS pistol or deleted that character and moved to another faction.

A lot of strong feelings over two factions with very little differences beyond average/larger magazine with fast/longer reloads.

I use ursa and flare for heavy and they do have a ton of recoil at mide range even though they are supposed to be mid range weapons. Many vanu weapons are only good at a specific range. They dont really need to have flash suppressor or normal suppressor

I've been collecting info for the past couple of days. It's not a huge data-set, so it's hardly conclusive, but it does make you wonder....

Alert Wins
NC : 4
TR : 5
VS : 1

Continents Locked
NC : 19
TR : 17
VS : 3

Thankfully there are people with much more data than you.



http://www.ps2alerts.com/#victory-timeline

On topic: Why compare gun 'equivalents' rather than just their actual horizontal recoils?



I'm a TR and NC player, and personally. the above matches what I've felt quite strongly when it comes to TR LMGs. I do exceptionally well with the Rhino simply because I can control the recoil quite well due to the reduced RoF compared to the CARV, and even the MSW-R. I even started out running the CARV-S rather than the CARV because I had trouble with the CARV's horizontal recoil in the early days.

Yes, some of the difficulty could be chalked up to horizontal tolerance, but I still stand by the Rhino feeling much easier to control horizontally than the MSW-R, which has lower tolerance. It helps that I came over to TR from NC, so I am used to lower horizontal recoil, I guess.

tldr: Vanu DO have more horizontal recoil per bullet on avg (for LMGs at least). TR with their slightly higher average RoF, even with their lower avg horizontal recoil per bullet, have slightly higher apparent horizontal recoil over time.

Fascinating! I didn't even know that site existed! That'll make for some interesting browsing in future. Thanks!