"VS OP" Why?

Doesn't every faction have a oneshot shotgun? I know that TR has two I think. The Uppercut and the other one escapes me right now, both are pump action.

VS should have one too if I am not mistaken?

I guess that's my fault for wording it the way I did, but that isn't how that number works. A modifier only means something when combined with a value. This is why the NS-15 has a much tamer first shot than the SAW despite its higher modifier and why the Naginata has such a punishing first shot despite a relatively benign modifier. The VS have on average the most unpredictable first shot in the game.

There is a difference between mechanical accuracy and practical accuracy. Lower bloom is not an end-all be-all statistic. I'm not going to wade through the mud with you on this, whether you believe me or not is not my problem.

Directive Weapons by their nature have a cadre of users that is both smaller and more highly skilled than average. Even the GODSAW and Butcher both have superior performance stats to the Anchor and MSW-R despite the latters' statistical superiority.

Averages from dasanfall:
Orion - HSR: 28.3 - Goose - HSR: 33.7
Saw - HSR: 26.4 - GSaw - HSR: 30.3
Carv - HSR: 26.4 - Butcher - HSR: 31
Anchor - HSR: 29.4
MSW-R - HSR: 28.5

The point is: the extraordinary statistics the Goose displays is more of a function of the fact that the VS got their "best" LMG as a starter, (and consequently Directive) weapon than of any special superiority of the weapon itself. The implications are that an equivalent group of users with the MSW-R or Anchor would achieve broadly similar results based on the estimated* relative increase in performance statistics from a non-Directive to Directive weapon cadre.

Therefore, even though certain VS guns may have superior intrinsic accuracy to their TR and NC counterparts, there are other contributing factors at play to the effect that the practical accuracy of these guns is not significantly greater than that of their peers.

*When I say estimated I mean it. This blatantly ignores variables like the availability of the Orion vs. the Anchor/MSW-R, % of skilled vs. non-skilled users, etc. But for the purposes of this discussion it should give us a ballpark to work with for a hypothetical.

Oh, of course. That would show the VS actually the worst and therefore must be true, how silly of me. /s



It's exactly what it sounds like. It multiplies the effect of recoil on the first shot in a burst. If a gun with a lower FSM has a larger kick, it's because its base recoil is larger.

You haven't provided any evidence of this claim at all, that the VS somehow have "the most unpredictable first shot in the game." Furthermore, you claimed "the VS' average FSRM is higher than either the TR or the NC." This is just flat out not true.

And these

weren't there before when you used character averages yourself to justify your claim? That's some confirmation bias right there.

Now having auraxed a considerable amount of infantry weapons on each faction (minus the NS operatives), I feel obliged to voice my 8 year veteran opinion. By factions I'll only reference TR, NC and VS, to minimize confusion.

Neither faction is overpowered compared to another, each has their unique advantages/disadvantages over another. HOWEVER, the nature of the VS arsenal, that completely deviates from TR or NC likeliness can contribute to the general thought that VS are OP. Personally, I do feel that VS get more love from the devs, and have a much more diversified arsenal, with more adaptable/useful mechanics than the other 2 factions. Allow me to explore a few of these unique attributes that contribute to the "VS is EZ mode ideology".

• The most powerful weapon in the VS arsenal (IMO) is the magrider. The ability to drive your tank without fear of flipping at the slightest encounter of a pebble is extremely refreshing. It doesn't only stop there, the ability to turbo out of difficult situations, overcome obstacles to flank at unique angles, easily dodge shots and passively avoid being C4ed is without a doubt what makes it a superior MBT over the other two factions. There's no denying the downsides it comes with, such as the fact the primary weapon is not attached to a turret, and the horribly slow starting speed (which is why I don't consider it OP), despite this, I believe it is the MBT with the most potential, and the least downsides.
• Another frequent issue is the unique directive mechanics. Even though the weapons are awfully similar to the defaults, and the betegeuse is now just an orion with no attachments, the unique heat mechanic obviously leaves a sour taste in the mouths of TR and NC players. In my experience, the TR directives are the most boring and uncreative, followed by NC. I do believe all directive weapons are trash (or at least none are worth getting), however the VS ones do feel more rewarding, and are generally less of a disappointment. The infinite ammo mechanic does allow for a good advantage, especially for aggressive players, who like to adventure beyond their allies support. Sure, resupplying isn't always the end of the world, but it's nice to be able to forget about that and just shoot heads. While ammo printer can be used to generate "infinite ammo" as well, it's quite possible to empty your ammo faster than the printer refills, and most importantly, this eats up a valuable implant slot. Another minor VS bias is the coldheart implant, which feels built just for the VS mechanic (or at least was until they tweaked the repair tool benefit).
• Another thing to examine is the recoil pattern. TR get the worst, both extreme horizontal and vertical recoil, NC get extreme vertical recoil and VS get a minimal horizontal recoil. While the horizontal recoil would technically be the worse to compensate for, the minimal recoil values and the fact that forward grips compensate only for horizontal recoil do make VS weapons significantly more accurate (at least in the hands of beginners) compared to the other factions. That is the source of VS being "easy mode", despite having a few weapons incredibly difficult to manage.
• Next is the VS faction trait. Their trait is better "handling", with faster cof reset values, quicker swap times, better accuracy, reloads, etc. All these traits allow the weapons to be quite easy to pickup and use in a multitude of scenarios. While TR and NC weapons do have better potential in the right hands, it's a steeper learning curve, and there is more need for reflection in dictating your engagements. For example, a VS noob will pick up his default weapon and zap dudes from close to medium to long ranges with ease, and even score a few kills. The TR noob might score a few kills up close, however they will struggle to hit anything past cqc. Even though a TR vet will have a better chance of shredding a VS vet of the same level, VS weapons do tend to have a nicer starting advantage.
• Then we have the controversial unstable ammo/lasher. I'll throw both in the same category, because these are extremely unique traits that do significantly affect gameplay. Asides from amassing easier teamkills, this type of increased hitbox ammo allows for some easy kills. It's much harder to dodge these massive projectiles, and the other factions have no equivalent. Granted, these have situational use, and facing a vet will usually leave you dead thanks to the decrease in headshot potential; it however opens up some high-speed gameplay and can be extremely deadly. Try fighting a catlike lasher heavy, or one with the maw and laser. If the person uses their increased movement ability to throw off headshots, then the advantage quickly switches to the unstable ammo/lasher user.

I wouldn't say VS are OP, nor should their identity and cool features be removed. The situation can easily be fixed by adding the same amount of use and creativity to TR and NC. Of course, a default with a few more rounds, or an ability to tickle armor isn't going to be as useful as infinite ammo and good accuracy. A few second spin-up mechanic in a game where the ttk is well below a second is going to be far more situational than having bullets the size of cannon-balls. A default with a underbarrel shotgun is going to be less rewarding than a default with underbarrel shotgun and infinite ammo. You see it's not an issue that VS are worked-on, it's more an issue that VS are worked-on while TR and NC are forgotten. That combined with the fact that VS have much more versatile, noob-friendly weapons contributes to the general idea that they are "OP", or at least get more love from the devs. I would like to see the other two factions get cool, unique (AND USEFUL) mechanics, or at least some equivalents to what VS get. Infinite ammo and lashers aren't something that even relate to the VS faction trait!
So yeah, VS are not OP, but it's easy to understand why some people think so, and I wouldn't be surprised if the devs work on that faction more than the other two. It does appear that VS get some careful reflection and devs actually interested in designing weapons for them, while the TR and NC just kinda get a boring 5 minute copy/paste/change it up a little version of each other's weaponry.

Yes, which is why using that number by itself is worthless and averaging it across multiple types even less so. I already said the fault was mine for the FSRM claim, chill out.

The average value representing where the first shot can go either vertically or horizontally for all ES LMGs is as follows:
NC - 1.061
TR - 1.108
VS - 1.126

A higher number means a larger potential recoil movement on the first shot. This takes into account both minimum and maximum values for recoil both horizontally and vertically as they relate to the first shot modifier for each weapon, then averages those to get a numerical representation. Hence:
"The most unpredictable first shot in the game." (At least for LMGs. Really, really can't be arsed to do this more than once.)
QED

Sorry but I'm going to have to ask for more substance from you here. I've been talking about "contributing factors" that affect the VS, specifically those of their guns which have a lower bloom value.

Actually you laid claim to a fault of misunderstood warning, not for making a false statement. But regardless, what's important is the average of FSMs for LMGs across the factions is every value added and divided by the number of values. The average in this instance is highest for the TR. Sorry, I realize I never mentioned so, but the values I gave are the averages for LMGs only, not overall. Then tend is more or less the same across all weapon types, so I didn't bother since we're mostly focusing on just LMGs anyway.

How a given FSM interacts with a weapon is not the same thing. Combining both vertical and horizontal is suspect to say the least, as this will obviously have a significant impact on the values. I can't say I care enough to check every value for an average, but combing the two just flat out makes it seem like you're hiding something.

Furthermore, saying a gun will on average go ~1.1 units both horizontally and vertically is pretty meaningless, and is certainly not very useful as a method of measuring accuracy.

You said:

1. Betelgeuse is not more accurate than other guns

2. Showed character averages on "Accuracy" that supported this claim

I said:

3. Explained "Accuracy" and "Headshot %", in particular how sacrificing "Accuracy" for "Headshot %" is desirable

4. Showed character averages on "Headshot %" with Betelgeuse reigning supreme

You:

5. Invalidate the character averages in (4.) with the justification that Betelgeuse users are more skilled than average

I then:

6. Pointed out that you might as well have considered that on the first presentation of character averages (2.)

7. Highlighted the similarity to confirmation bias, which is to interpret information in favor of a prior belief

Because had it not been confirmation bias to support the belief in (1.), you would surely reason about the data in (2.) and figured out (3.) and (4.) yourself. Instead it was simply added as an observation to 'vindicate' statement (1.). And only after (3.) and (4.) has been presented by others, along with extensive analysis of recoil patterns and predicatbility, many arguments of which certainly indicate Betelgeuse being OP, do you come with (5.). This time not only to support (1.) but also extend it to a "Betelgeuse is not a better weapon than other guns". This leads me to conclude that you are beyond reasonable arguments, and being one-sided about it. So far:

• Statistics showing the Betelgeuse being average are valid according to you
• Statistics showing the Beteleguese being good are invalid according yo you

And the same goes for any reasonable argument. Essentially if the statistics/arguments does not support the prior belief "Betelguese is just as good any other gun" they are disregarded, and that is the definition of confirmation bias.

In particular one statement which illustrates this well:

Here you skip the fact that users of Goose/GSaw/Butcher are all equivalent cadre (directive) and proceed to speculate about estimations and adjustments on the Anchor/MSW-R statistics. If we forget about the latter two guns for a moment and only consider the directive variants, you do notice that Goose still has a 3% percentage advantage in HSR don't you? This, despite supposedly equal skill, does not come from the weapon being more accurate, but other contributing factors?

https://planetside.fandom.com/wiki/T9A_"Butcher"
https://planetside.fandom.com/wiki/NC6A_GODSAW
https://planetside.fandom.com/wiki/Betelgeuse_54-A


There's no denying the betelgeuse is accurate, both in ADS and hipfire situations. It's high first shot multiplier is easily gives way to one of the smoothest lmgs to use. Sure, it's not quite the NS-15 type accuracy, nor is it on par with the orion - which can equip a forward grip and laser sight to become even more accurate - however it's still an extremely deadly all-rounder.

Now we can see from the numbers you pulled that the goose does have a huge headshot advantage over the others. HOWEVER, we must not fall into the trap of jumping to conclusions based on logical fallacies.

Notice the starting values. The saw and the carv hav identical stats. We can assume the bulk of this consists of new players, who are immediately faced with the harsh recoil patterns of these two factions, and ultimately have very little accuracy, as most of their shots splat onto the nearest wall as they hold the trigger down for more than 3 shots. The orion on the other hand is a bit more accurate, boasting stats that are more on par with the mswr and anchor, which is usually where most players will transition to after their nasty starting experience.

In definitive, none of these weapons reach the HSR of the directives. Why? Is it because directive weapons are more accurate than the defaults? Aside from the saw, the butcher and the betel are less accurate variants simply due to their lack of a forward grip/laser sight attachment. By that logic, the default starting weapons - which boast the highest accuracy - should have the higher HSRs. But that's evidently not the case. Why? Well we can assume by the time the person has unlocked the directive lmg, they've learned how to use weapons, or at least have a moderate understanding of how to play to land headshots.

BUT that's not all. Experience is no doubt a factor that contributes to why "final tier" weapons have higher HSR values than the default, but there's a bit more to uncover. Have you ever seen a godsaw or butcher main? Is that a common occurrence? In my experience, people who unlock the TR and NC directives often aurax them and then rarely ever use them again. Why is that? Again, there's numerous scenarios to explore, but in my experience it really boils down to the reward feeling of the directives. For TR, a carv with 50 more rounds is __, but is it really something to trade over the carv-s, the bull, watchman, or whatever? As for NC, who arguably get the worst one; how often is a tryhard vet going to shoot at vehicles with his godsaw? And why would they trade the 100 round mag for a marginally better reload, when they have access to better weapons in that category anyways? The answer is simple: they don't. For VS however, there is a unique mechanic - actually useful - that would validate actually maining with the weapon. The only real downside is less accuracy, which is something that's easily managed by the vet's experience and the outstanding base accuracy the weapon's model has anyways. That's why despite the default being more accurate, and the wide variety of great lmgs VS have access to, you'll generally see VS vets using the betegeuse on their heavy. Since they spend more time using the betelgeuse (and improving while they are using it, the HSR is higher for that weapon).

That said, despite the fact that most NC and TR vets will use the anchor/mswr or default, the HSR are lower than those of the directive lmgs. That's likely due to the fact that newer players are bringing those averages down, and not the weapon's accuracy. On the other hand, the fact that the orion has the highest HSR values is a clear indicator that the weapon is superior in the realm of accuracy compared to the other two faction defaults. And of course, that's easily validated when you compare your orion with a saw or carv. That better accuracy in the orion platform is obviously a factor which would contribute to the better HSR overall of the betelgeuse, but not the sole reason why the betelgeuse values would be so high.

If you notice, you'll see people transitioning from orion to betegeuse jump 6% in HSR, while NC and TR jump 4% and 5% respectively. Is it because players in NC and TR are worse than VS? No. Is it because the VS accuracy is better? Well, not really, because the gap should still be really similar as we're not counting the HSR overall, but rather the increase in HSR those players have while transitioning to the directive weapons. If anything, the VS should have the lowest transitional HSR values as they reach their peak potential due to the accuracy of the weapon earlier in the game compared to NC and TR. What causes these considerable gaps?

As explained before, the vets could be returning to the default weapons, or others, and boosting the HSR values,, that would otherwise be lower, while VS main continue to slightly improve and maintain high HSR on their directive.


So while there's no denying the betelgeuse is an incredible gun, keep in mind the orion actually has better accuracy, and accuracy isn't the sole determining factor for why a weapon is underperforming.

1hk shotguns:

TR:
Uppercut - Faster chamber time, less damage
Blackjack - More damage, slower chamber time

NC:
Claw - Faster chamber time, less damage
Bruiser - More damage, slower chamber time

VS:
Phobos - Faster chamber time, less damage
Deimos - More damage, slower chamber time

All shotguns follow the same inter-faction stats for balance purposes, jackhammer, directives and defaults aside.

Basically when it comes to pump, full auto or the rest of the semi-auto arsenal, stats are identical.

Jackhammer is considered a heavy weapon, so I'll skip that.

The directives are all pretty trash, they all force a smart choke on the default, but TR get 2 more bullets and NC gets underbarrel shotgun. VS gets an extremely short short reload but a longer long reload.


The VS default and by consequence the directive also get no bullet drop on their pellets. IMO, it might be a minute advantage on the directive, since it's supposed to boast a bit more accuracy at range with the smart choke, but ultimately you probably will never notice it and you're better using a pump or full auto instead.

Very high amount of uniques in Q4 is an important factor + there is very little reason for VS to use the rest of their mediocre pool of LMGs. Neither the GODSAW or Butcher fit into the "competitive" meta. By the looks of it, TR are mostly fond of their MSW-R followed by the Butcher and then Watchman. NC seem to like their Anchor, SAW, and GODSAW on a similar level (with the Anchor usually having more uniques). VS on the other hand, pick the BG in rather overwhelming numbers (Orion accounting for approx. half of BG users and the rest half or less of Orion users each).

* All numbers drawn from Q4.

I think the heat mechanic adds to this as well. Not having to worry (too much) about reloads means you can be in ADS when you need to. I've done this with an EM6 with ex mags, for example, where I am able to keep on keeping on and thanks due to being able to remain in ADS (since I can dictate the engagement) I win more easily. You can do this with just about any high capacity LMG too, the SAW rewards such a style for instance since it doesn't want to be reloading until the work is done.

In other words, the BG has a meta friendly weapon damage model with heat mechanics which makes it superior to the Orion.

While this is true, if we only compare the Betelgeuse, Anchor and MSW-R, I believe the Betelgeuse is more accurate.

CoF values
Standing still, both the Anchor and MSW-R has a 2.75 inital CoF while Betelgeuse has 2.5, and when moving this changes to 3.5 for Anchor/MSW-R while Betelgeuse retains the 0.25 advantage landing at 3.25 hipfire CoF. Additionally the Anchor has 0.12 bloom per shot as compared to 0.1 for the others, but this is compensated for by the damage model.

ADS Betelgeuse's has that specially low 0.04 bloom per shot, while the other guns have the standard for their damage model, that is 0.05 for MSW-R and 0.06 for Anchor. However both Anchor and MSW-R seems to have an advantage over Betelgeuse with a starting CoF when moving at 0.35 compared to Betelgeuse's 0.4. This means that when strafing, these guns can shot 1 extra bullet before reaching the CoF the Betelgeuse starts with, but after that they will always have worse bloom. Keep in mind though that this initial advantage only lasts the first 3 shots in a burst, before CoF has started to have any noticable effects. When standing still Anchor has 0.03 (1 shot advantage) CoF while both MSW-R and Betelgeuse has 0.1.

So in conclusion, Betelgeuse has better hipfire stats and better CoF in prolonged bursts when ADS, but the other weapons can equip laser sights and grips.

Recoil values
Betelgeuse has 0.22 horizontal recoil with a straight angle that can kick twice to either direction. As explained in earlier posts, once a kick to either direction is detected, the weapon is more likely to stay at this side for several shots and only has an 1/8 chance of cutting directly back over to the other side. This allows the shooter to focus on an area just 2 kicks wide where most of the bullets will land, as well as exploit high probability exact bullet placements for headshots.

The MSWR--R has 0.225 horizontal recoil without the grip, which angles in between 17-20 degrees. This means that the shooter can never compensate for the recoil perfectly neither vertically or horizontally, and the reticule placement will always be unknown. The advantage of the MSW-R though is that it has a low tolerance limit that makes it kick just once to either side, as the below simulations also show. Anchor has a more or less similar recoil pattern, with a 0.18 horizontal recoil and 18-20 degree angle.

Recoil illustrated
There is a stat site which has recoil "simulations" for all PS2 guns: https://ps2.liquidwarp.net/stats/weapons/infantry-list.html
I took some pictures therefrom, all normalized to the same size/units for comaprison

x

x

x


In particular, a rotated comparison retaining scale:


So at least after 10 shots all weapons have a similar bullet spread, Betelgeuse partly from the wide recoil that can be gambled on, the other guns more due to bloom making for lottery mechanics. At this point is time to stop shooting for a new burst in any case, so lets analyse the bullets before that.

The first two bullets are pretty much the same for all guns, the first landing apprx. where the reticule is and the second jumping either left or right by one horizontal recoil value.

On bullet 3 both the Anchor and MSW-R has one approximate location, while Betelgeuse is slightly disadvantaged here with 3 possible locations, the centre one having 50% chance. Still on the next bullet 4 all guns are on an equal footing again with 2 possible locations separated one recoil value apart.

On bullet 5 Betelgeuse is slightly disadvantaged again and will need to gamble and/or correct from any observed kicks taken in the past. Assuming a standing-still position, the Anchor will have 0.27 CoF on this shot, MSW-R will have 0.30, and Betelgeuse 0.26. This means that on the next shot with 2 possible locations, not only will the Betelgeulse have the advantage of gambling for the correct location (compared to Anchor/MSWr who always have 50/50 chance), it will also be notably more accurate.

Interesting discussion... I tried a lot of time to make some comparative analysis of weapons (from dasantfall, voidwell, ...) and each and every time after a lot of effort invested I failed miserably because at the end, no matter which criteria I picked and how I presented them, the analysis was always flawed or inconclusive.

Weapon stats (magazine size, Cof, Rof, damage model, recoil pattern, ...) are all objective values.

However, those value at best are useful to define for which scenarios/playstyle a weapon is potentially better than another. The TAR with high RPM/low DMG with abysmal ADS accuracy but excellent hip-fire numbers and 0.75 movement multiplier is a great CQC/aggressive weapon, the polar opposite of something like the Pulsar C or, even more extreme, the AC-X11.

Most likely nobody would contest a statement such as "The TAR is better at close range whereas the AC-X11 is vastly superior at long-range engagements".

Another -relatively easy- discussion would be "What is better? A weapon with a random/not polarized recoil or a weapon with a clear recoil bias, left or right?"

I would immediately answer: give me the polarized one any day of the week. I can learn to counter the recoil by muscle memory if I use it for long enough." (as Renz0r used to say lifting his mouse "This ... Is my compensator, you do not need to equip one.")

Then we enter the realm of CoF and Bloom. But again, the counter is there: bursting (FSRM notwithstanding). Those things can be handled by using the weapon long enough. And all in all, with the typical PS2 engagement times you do not spend seconds exchanging bursts because sooner or later your enemy will kill you, or you will kill him or a third player joining the duel with put an end of it. Despite all the discussions about being professional and bursting, as long as you do not mag-dump your weapon you are good to go. Something will happen.

So what is left to make a weapon better of another without placing both weapon in a similar content with similarly skilled players? Basically nothing.

Then let's look at what players can achieve with those weapons: KPU, KDR, accuracy, HSR, ...

But those value are devoid of any contextual information: I am not a particularity good or experienced player but I tried to use the NSX-Tengu and failed miserably, it does not fit at all my play-style based on medium range engagements, positioning, scanning the map, always moving, ADSing, bursting and taking cover, ... (typical ArmA of course, those are my roots). But for an hyper-aggressive infiltrator popping out of nowhere the Tengu could be a Gift from the Gods and achieve superb KDR and incredible accuracy because it is being used at point-blank range.

The point that I am trying to make is that we can either look at objective weapons characteristics which will give indications of the potential of weapons in certain scenarios or we can look at subjective results of players using those weapons without having any clue of their play-style and contexts in which they have accumulated those results.

Neither starting point will tell something concrete about weapon A being "better" (whatever better may mean) than weapon B.

The combined value gives a relative approximation for the amount of movement you can expect to see on the first shot fired. There are better ways to represent it but as I said before my willingness to invest time into this is rather low. I'm sorry you think I'm hiding something, but if you say you don't care enough to do the work yourself I can't really do much about that.

The recoil value is given in degrees. A higher number means more crosshair displacement from your point of aim making the initial shots from a burst more difficult to land on a target. This is rather important since those initial shots typically decide the outcome of a fight.

Except that (1) is dependent on the guns you are talking about, and I have indicated multiple times that neither the SAW or the Carv are on par with the Orion. Hence why I continue to include guns which statistically and numerically match or exceed the Orion instead of ones that are categorically worse. For (2) I included the statistics for both the Orion and the BG specifically because to use the stats for the BG by itself would have been invalid because of the reasons pointed out in (5). This invalidates (6) and outright refutes (7).

The Goose has high statistical accuracy because it is a good gun with a good user pool. The Butcher and GSAW have the same (relative) user pool but are themselves worse guns. That good guns outperform worse guns when skill levels are equivalent should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. Thus you see more skilled users for the NC/TR gravitating towards guns which quite specifically behave more like the Orion (guess which two). BUT since they are not locked behind an XP-Wall these weapons* are never going to have the same high statistics the Goose enjoys.

*Statistically the Orion should outperform the BG too, but it never will for the same reasons.

It's extremely misleading, implying a large diagonal moment. In reality these values could be majoritarily upwards and therefore less of an issue. Niether of us can be asked to run every number, great. Well I guess it's too bad we don't have exact values for each and every weapon's accuracy in each possible stance as well as the rates of change.

At 20m range it takes 8 bodyshots with the Anchor or 10 bodyshots with the Betelgeuse/MSW-R to kill a nanoweaved enemy infantry. If the enemy additionally is a Heavy Assault a couple of extra rounds are needed to gnaw through the overshield. Add in a handful of misses and it might take up towards ~15 shots to kill an enemy HA. This is a very typical situation.

Now take two weapons, one which is terribly innaccurate and needs a 0.4 second bursting pause after 12 shots, and compare it with one that can shoot for 16 shots before reaching the same level of inaccuracy. IMO from trying the Orion on an alt it seems as if the slower CoF growth is well balanced with 1 burst takedowns on enemy HAs, making it superior in 1v1 situations where the Anchor would need a bursting pause.

Anchor scales better with HS with the three-shot potential to kill.

Probably true, though with the addition of grips on the MSW-R and Anchor the recoil grouping gets noticeably tighter. The Anchor and MSW-R both have access to SPA. The reason I think mentioning attachments is important is because if accuracy is a key factor then the Orion should be the better choice, and more widely used, than the BG.

It is then more likely that there is something unique with the BG which helps it perform so much better overall.

What I got from this discussion:
- Magrider is OP
- Betelgeuse is OP
- Orion is OP too of course since it has an attachments
- VS camouflage is OP
- Lasher is OP
- Striker isn't OP at all. And Valk with Striker HAs isn't OP
- Vulcan isn't OP
- Gauss SAW (200 max dmg by the way) isn't OP becuse of Orion and Betelgeuse
- Promise isn't OP despite its accuracy
- Railjack isn't OP
Thank you, I know what faction to play

(sarcasm off)

That is only within 15m (w/ SPA). LMGs are not optimal at such short ranges regardless as SMGs are much better. That's why I used 20m in the post as this provides a more fair comparison, and as two LMGs are compared in a "typical" scenario both nanoweave and HA overshield are assumed. On these terms Anchor needs 5 headshots to deal 1635 DMG, or 11 bodyshots to deal 1439 DMG which is a kill in practice as the overshield never blocks the full theoretical 450 DMG when factoring in activation cost. Betelgeuse needs 6 headshots for 1648 DMG or 13-14 bodyshots for 1428-1538 DMG. TTK wise both guns use 0.4s in the headshot scenario and Anchor uses 1.0s with bodyshots, Betelgeuse uses 0.96s or 1.04s depending on if 13 or 14 rounds were needed.

The point is though, whereas the TTK is approximately equal, in a realistic competitive setting with ADAD and inevitable misses, the accuracy advantage of Betelgeuse/Orion in prolonged bursts does come into play.

Now you're just flat out making stuff up.