I really don't care about what a couple of VS players think about those things. I didn't say those things or even believe them. You claimed VS has a velocity advantage and you were wrong. When I pointed out NC and TR has an advantage in damage deg on their long range options you went into some immature rant about VS inferiority... Acting as if I am trying say VS weapons are UP when I clearly wasn't. Rather the opposite, I think. The SAW is the single weapon NC has which warrant any kind of special attention. Calling it hard mode is stretching it and I don't buy your reason for doing so. I mean, it is true you lose more damage per bullet but I could just claim VS/TR is hard mode (but I don't...) because they need to hit more bullets. There's a lot more to it, such as ROF/DMG/recoil pattern, etc. And that's the last I'll say on that. I'd take a look at how you make your own arguments because you quite often come across the VS players you say have an inferiority/victim complex and it is quite weird having to argue points I'm not even making.
Faction balance discussions are always overshadowed by people that main a single faction. Their faction is always worse than the others, because they have no point of reference. You cannot make a wrong choice of faction based on equipment. You will have certain differences, but nothing that will put you at an actual combat disadvantage. Overall the NC infantry arsenal is the best. NC has superior damage models, good at CQC and (unlike the other factions) very competent at longer range combat due to good damage dropoff values (e.g. the borderline OP Gauss SAW). Furthermore NC offers a high variety of options in all weapon classes. TR is more focused on RoF as a faction, and brings up a larger selection of CQC guns. Still, the TR arsenal offers a certain range of choices, though limited options when it comes to ranged combat (e.g. Cougar - Carbine; TMG - LMG). VS as a faction has the most underwhelming infantry arsenal. Very little versatility, often the only guns actually worth using are the 1 or 2 meta options. Many weapons feel lackluster and offer no benefit over the superior choices. The VS gimmick of no bullet drop is utterly useless, and anyone listing it as an upside shouldn't be listened to. The very few exceptions which gain use out of that gimmick are the Battle Rifles and the Semi-automatic snipers. In general though you can always simply choose the meta guns for your faction and you will be on a competitive setting with your opponent.
Probably the dumbest thing I've read on here in some time. NC offers the best weapons overall, and are perfectly controllable as most of their recoil is vertical, which is completely negligible. Claiming that a faction is "hard mode" because you have to actually land your shots on a consistent basis instead of wildly spraying at your target is stupid at best.
Frankly I've had a lot of fun in all factions. NC doesn't stand out particularly to me with shotguns everywhere. The Vanguard is supposed to be the most tanky, but I feel that isn't true. Without the shield it doesn't really stand out with a bigger health pool and with the shield I'm only manoeuvring and waiting until someone is close enough to straight up tank the rest, but I still need to be careful, regardless of what others say. Once the shield is down I need to keep having a tactical advantage or run away until it's back again. The infantry weapons are strong but generally unwieldy due to recoil, which doesn't sit well with the quick pace I'm used to, but in some situations it's certainly a boon. Other people can certainly think the faction is the strongest. The TR has a tank that doesn't have much competition. It's DPS is straight up insane and can be boosted to even more grotesque levels. 1/2 the best of all tanks, 2/2 is more close, but still in favour of this tank. Even the slightest tactical advantage can be turned into a win, regardless of the tank on the other side. This tank can kill a 2/2 magrider with saron if it(Prowler) just spawns and the magrider unloads and decides to tank the rest. For me THAT is tanky. Straight up murdering with power. Not a hoping your defence will hold while you shoot the enemy. Prowler is also more forgiving in shots due to it's 2 shot nature. The weapons are more my style, as higher fire rate and more forgiving misses accompany my fast paced style. I get tge idea most people have a thing for this faction and think thrme grass is greener elsewhere, but this faction is certainly strong, if not the strongest. VS has a tank that is lacklustre with only a driver, but can shine in 2/2. This tank requires more tactics than the others, but the design also makes it much easier to employ these tactics. The movement also allows a bigger more consistent front to form, making fewer tanks a formidable force than with the other factions. Generally I do some damage after which we try to dump high damage by unloading the Saron and the main gun. It pays to hold fire to unload in the back sometimes (no pun intended). The guns are strange but can be handled well with practice. No drop is nice, but compensated by generally slower bullet velocity, or at least a feel it's slower. Heat mechanics, if you get them, are insanely powerful as each second not firing is a form of reload, and generally the battlefield can be managed in such a way you never have the reload downtime negatively impacting you. You can always fire in an emergency as well. Shortly my perspective on what 80+% of the people is playing. All factions can be powerhouses and be very strong for certain people's playstyles. I prefer the quirky nature of the VS with tactics to decimate people, although I've played the NC most as I started on it and got used to it. The TR is for me the easy mode and I jump in with friends if we feel we don't want to think and still feel effective, but other people might not agree.
vs is lacking in firepower tank wise that 100% correct but the tr tank and nc tanks feel more like equals right now if the nc tank will be able to kite, he should be able to win(getting in and out of cover) or not letting the prowler get into his back side and getting a mjolnir is a direct counter to the prowler in close combat, just try it. prowlers have the same ttk(if i remember correctly its a sec or two difference in the vg favor without abilities on both tanks) on vanguards as vanguards on prowlers right now. being tanky can mean a lot of things, using armor, using high armor to dmg, high dmg per shot with long reload if you ever played WOT, you will see that even weak tanks can take out the stronger ones(armor,dps wise etc) using correct tactics and showing some tankiness when they need to so i cant say that prowlers are stronger or weaker, it just depends on the situation right now
My only contribution to this thread is that I prefer NC infantry primaries for not-very-close CQC or medium range, especially the Promise with its recoil damper and the Bishop. I'm not a great head shooter and so I prefer the dakka of TR or the more manageable recoil of VS for CQC work. That said, the no-drop VS weapons (VA39, Eidolon and Obelisk) are awesome long range killers. It usually comes down to the type of engagement and skill of the enemy in my case but I can't say, after three years or more, that I see major differences between the factions as far as infantry goes. Other than that, I love the Striker and I wish the other factions had something a bit more like it - maybe the coyote mechanic against air (although the Masamune, which I use on the other factions, is fun).
VS- Spandex and aliens NC-Bricks, spit and freedom TR-Space version of commie-facists The rest is kinda subjective and arguable
About game lore, I don't think it is fair to give a one-sided view. I believe each faction is set up to have both positive and negative elements equally, which gets amplified depending on which faction's perspective you take. I still don't know all that much about the game lore beside what's written in the wiki and other places, but in the absence of knowing the state of the Earth and of humanity in the PS2's version of future, there's no logical basis for vilifying or praising any one or more factions (or 4th 'faction,' NS), so it remains open-ended.
the sad part of the lore is that the vs has no reason to fight the nc(never been told why) and that they just emerged after a long time declaring they will annihilate the tr and nc alike it feels like vs doesnt even belong in the fight(lore wise only of course), besides those scientists could make up a better plan than just attacking them on the ground, like space battle n sh&t in which they have a huge advantage(tech wise of course)
Ah it apparently isn't clear. I can dismantle any opposition in any of the tanks. I just gave my view on how easy it was for each and some of the approaches I have to it. Also I was explaining my position on tanky, because I recognise other people their differing opinions. Also the VS has plenty of power if you combine tactics and a top gun.
The VS magrider, because it is a hover tank, has a hill climbing ability the other factions don't have, allowing VS tanks to reach firing positions that no other tank can get to, hence why myself and others consider it a superior anti-infantry tank and a superior flanker in anti-armor warfare. It's anti-vehicle secondary is the best one for engaging enemy armor at range because of its high projectile velocity. It's anti-armor capability relies on engaging from stand off range. By being a hover tank, it can strafe side to side while keeping the front, its strongest armor, facing towards enemy fire. The hovering also means there's a high chance that a shot that would've hit the front of a tracked tank would like fall just short of the tank's nose and hit the terrain under the tank. They don't fare as well in close quarters combat because their main cannon is fixed forward so the entire tank has to turn, often exposing its flank to the enemy. The TR tank can have the fastest rate of fire, making it good for sustained damage and the vulcan secondary makes it a scary adversary in close range. The tank has a higher profile than the vanguard, making it better for infantry or repair sunderers to hide behind. The NC's chassis and turret give it a profile that allows it to use the terrain as cover. It's terrible at reversing so don't try to compare it to an M1 Abrams even though they look similar. The tactic of retreating while firing does not work well in Planetside. It does however have the highest alpha strike. Coordinated attacks between 3 tanks can devastate large armor groups by killing enemy vehicles before they have a chance to retreat. All tanks however are absolutely terrible at providing close range anti-infantry support because of the light assault rocklet rifle.
Allright, the kiddies version then! Gauss SAW has a 0,36 second TTK when using headshots. Orion has 0,36 second TTK when using headshots. Gauss SAW requires 3 headshots to kill. Orion requires 4 headshots to kill (again, those 4 shots happen in the same timespan as 3 Gauss shots). COF growth is heavily tied to damage output of that particular weapon class: if you've shot 400 worth of damage with a gun it barely matters which gun you've used, the COF is practically the same. So those 4 shots happen with just as much accuracy as the 3 shots in the same timeframe. Should the Gauss SAW miss, it takes longer to recover and get the kill than with a higher ROF weapon like the Orion. Ipso ergo humongus scrotum, having a high damage profile like a 200 per bullet weapon is worse than having a lower damage profile with a higher ROF. NC has the most high-damage profile weapons, therefore also the highest punishment for misses.
You do care and you parroted one of their sentiments multiple times. For example "the VS has lower muzzle velocity". If you compare the Carbines of the VS and TR, you'll notice the VS has a higher velocity on most of it's Carbines and equal on the rest: http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Carbines#Vanu Sovereignty If you compare the LMG's of the VS and TR, you'll notice the VS has a higher velocity on almost all of it's LMG's, with only their directive LMG dragging it down: http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Light_Machine_Guns#Vanu Sovereignty If you compare the AR's of the VS and TR, you'll notice the VS has a higher velocity on all AR's and by a good margin as well: http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Assault_Rifles#Vanu Sovereignty The only places the VS has lower velocity is when they have no-bulletdrop, which is a compensation for having the no bullet drop perk. So where does this myth come from? It's no different than all the other myths around the VS, and here you are happily parroting the same old myth even after I debunked it. Huh, explain that one to me. Where's your proof? I just gave mine (again), but you seem to be using opinion as proof. "I just mentioned all the downsides of VS weapons plus some imagined one's that don't exist, but nah I'm not saying they are UP at all!". Good one! How am I supposed to tell that you are not calling the VS weapons UP when all you do is call out every downside without a single advantage the weapons have? Yes! There is a lot more! That's why "having to hit more bullets" is not a good argument when your ROF is higher and compensates for misses more easily. What's funny (or actually not) is that of all the things everyone always mentions, not a single one of the VS people ever mentions the lower damage per magazine. NC has more damage per bullet overall but the same magazine size, TR has the same damage per bullet but higher magazine size, the VS has a lower total damage per magazine. But for some reason one of the only real downsides to using a VS weapon is never really mentioned. It's not exactly rocketscience to look at the weapons and find this out, yet everyone comes up with freaking imaginary downsides in order to somehow magically do... What exactly? Get buffs? Make people go "dahw them poor VS need a leg up" or something? And I really hope no one is going to use the "mah damage potential per magazine" argument now because it's also mute if you look at everything the VS get in return. Hmm hmm, so you haven't repeatedly parroted their exact sentiments and put the VS weapons arsenal as an inferior bunch to the TR and NC in this thread? Oh you haven't outright said "oh noes mah VS is inferior", but why should that matter if you say the exact same things as VS supporters?
Going to briefly interject here (not jumping in on either side) on the matter of weapon effectiveness: Just comparing the SAW to the Orion in pure TTK terms: - The SAW fires 500 RPM at 200 damage per bullet - The Orion fires 750 RPM at 143 damage per bullet 500 RPM is 8 bullets in one second, 750 is 12. This means that in one second a SAW will do 1600 Damage provided every shot lands and none are headshots, giving a TTK against a 1000HP target of ~0.625s. For the Orion this is 1716 Damage with a bodyshot TTK of ~0.583s. Headshots halves these values into ~0.313s and ~0.292s respectively. Obviously as distance increases and damage dropoff takes its toll these values change slightly. The Orion keeps a slight lead in raw DPS until about 35m at which point the SAW takes a slight lead until about 70m** where they are roughly equal again. ** This is completely hypothetical, neither of these weapons will be achieving a 100% hit percentage at these ranges, and most of the time they won't even bother fighting at these ranges. However, it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect that players are 100% accurate and hitting perfect headshots in all gunfights. I pulled the data from dasanfall for the average Accuracy and HSR for a player using both the SAW and the Orion and applied these modifiers to my math, and got this: - Acc - SAW: 19% - Orion: 20% - HSR - SAW: 23% - Orion: 24% Factoring these values means that across all ranges the average DPS of the Orion will be ~426 and that of the SAW will be ~374. While damage dropoff closes the gap somewhat, if we assume accuracy degradation is somewhat linear the Orion still has the advantage at all ranges. These numbers obviously encompass the entire spectrum of engagements with these weapons, from point blank to extreme range. You're not likely to miss 80% of your shots at a guy 5m in front of you, but in your average firefight, a player using the Orion will hit the target more, hit the head more, and generally kill more quickly. Now, just to make things more complicated, I'll try to remove the "newbie" factor that plagues the stats of the starting weapons by checking the numbers for the "ultimate" versions of these two guns: the BattleGoose and the GodSaw. - Acc - GSAW: 28% - Goose: 25% - HSR - GSAW: 26% - Goose: 29% Here it gets interesting,in the hands of experienced users the GSAW has a better average DPS (~565 vs the Goose's ~554) and better Accuracy despite the fact that the Goose User will hit the head more often. The gap between them only widens as the range increases. So napkin math says that in the hands of the average Planetman, the Orion is more deadly than the SAW, but when you put the ~equivalent~ weapons into the hands of more experienced players, the roles reverse. Make of that what you will.
My god thats a nasty thing to do. Claim you looked at my links and then just lie about the contents! Look at the links! They support what I said. Stop trolling
I don't think your math is quite right, I am fairly certain all three starter LMGs are theoretically identical in TTK given maximum damage dealt with perfect accuracy and instant projectile travel times. (Which should be 0.48s for bodyshots, 0.24s for headshots.) The correct way to calculate theoretical TTKs is by taking the refire time of the weapon and multiplying it by the STK minus the first shot, as the initial shot is fired instantly. At least, that's how to do it according to this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/2c21og/how_to_calculate_time_to_kill/ Regardless, the only way for a SAW to be superior to an Orion within a certain range is for the SAW's user to always maintain a greater accuracy to that of their opponent while still using the more difficult and user-unfriendly weapon of the two. At ranges where the SAW is better even with the same or slightly lower accuracy the Orion is just being out-ranged.
Thanks for the info, I guess I can fiddle around with my napkin math and see what the differences are. That said, all things being equal even if my maths aren't perfect it should at least help represent the differences between the two guns.
Faction - LMG - Bullet Velocity NC EM1 630m/s EM6 570m/s NC6S Gaiss SAW S 630m/s GD-22S 620m/s NC6 Gauss SAW 600m/s LA1 Anchor 570m/s MGR-L1 Promise 550m/s NC6A GODSAW 670m/s 8 LMGs, sum total 4,840 divided by 8 = 605 m/s average NC LMG lowest 550m/s (Promise), highest 670m/s (NC6A GODSAW) VS Flare 600m/s Orion VS54 540m/s Pulsar LSW 620m/s SVA-88 630m/s VX29 Polaris 625m/s Ursa 640m/s VE-H Maw 550m/s Betelgeuse 54-A 540m/s 8 LMGs sum total 4,745 divided by 8 = 593.125 m/s average VS LMG lowest 540m/s (Orion & Betelgeuse), highest 640m/s (Ursa) TR MSW-R 580m/s T9 CARV 600m/s T9 CARV-S 600m/s T16 Rhino 640m/s TMG-50 615m/s T32 Bull 640m/s MG-H1 Watchman 550m/s T9A "Butcher" 600m/s 8 LMGs sum total 4,825 divided by 8 = 603.125 m/s average TR LMG lowest 550m/s (Watchman), highest 640m/s (Rhino & Bull) Conclusion: LMG low to high: average (VS 593.125, TR 603.125, NC 605), slowest (VS 540, NC 550 = TR 550), fastest (VS 640 = TR 640, NC 670)
And now compare the individual LMG's to eachother because this means nothing. Because as already mentioned the reason why the total VS bullet velocity is lower is only because of the directive betelgeuse that has a lower velocity than the butcher. For example I'll put a few of the weapons from above against eachother. With the same type of weapon in terms of damage model, cert cost etc versus the TR version of that same weapon: MSWR vs Pulsar LSW: 580 vs 620 Polaris vs T9 Carv-S: 600 vs 625 TMG-50 vs Ursa: 615 vs 640 Watchmen vs MAW: 550 vs 550 Rhino vs Polaris: 640 vs 625 (oh my god one where the TR wins!) Bull vs SVA: 640 vs 630, wow two wins TR! But does it matter by now? The VS has had a higher velocity on more weapons and the difference is overall larger already. T9 Carv vs Orion: 600 vs 540, Hurrah TR is pulling even! Wait, "even" does not mean "VS now has slower velocity weapons". This and the Betelgeuse is the reason you find so low total muzzle velocity, but that doesn't mean squat overall. The other weapons are different weapon models and shouldn't be compared this way. If you did though, TR would have another win under his belt, but still the VS wouldn't be the "low velocity" faction, especially when you start adding the Carbines and Assault Rifles into the mix. So again, what has been proven? VS does not have lower velocity overall and people complaining about it are creating a myth for their own purposes, even if they might believe it to be true.
MSWR is a close range weapon, the Pulsar LSW is a generalist weapon with similar attachment options to the Rhino. The closest weapon for VS in the Orion. Both NC/VS have their ALS/SPA close range weapons in the form of Polaris/EM1. Versus the CARV-S one of the other 698RPM VS weapons is a better comparison (for the reasons above). For some reason though the Flare got the "S" variant treatment. Watchman vs the MAW? Why? The only thing they have in common with each other is they were released at the same time. Rhino vs Polaris. The Pulsar LSW is more similar than the Polaris. Bull/Rhino does fill a very similar role the the SVA (and LSW). Agreed. T9 Carv vs Orion. Another good comparison since they fill similar roles.
