2 Orion Myths Debunked

The "problem" with TR LMGs is that their traits (RoF+clip size) are either ignored or irrelevant in that category. TR has 2x750rpm, but VS have a 750rpm, so no "real" advantage there in term of quality, just in quantity. I don't think that's much of an issue. Then the TR equivalent to Orion has 50 rounds in clip, same as the Orion itself. Not 60.

Overall their LMGs have either 50, 75 or 100 rounds just like the other ES LMGs (except Bull), but not 60, 90 or 120. We VS are somewhat limited in terms of clip size on our LMGs, but compared to NC, there's quite frankly no difference in clip size, or even in term of available spare rounds.
Though i'm pretty certain having 100->120 rounds in clip makes no difference while 50->60 is significant. Yet i believe that would help into making the state of LMGs more acceptable, without being too big a thing.

It's a bit surprising that they almost flat out ignored the TR traits for this category of weapons (not even a 800ish rpm/125 model), but i guess that was to make some bigger gap with the MCG.

Lol, the difference of KPU is so minor 1.3 KPU. But how can you not take into account, that more casual HA will be using the default LMG ( because it is such a good LMG and its free!), as well as more dedicated HA will be using a 1k LMG, so the stats will reflect that... yes it's speculation, but its obvious.

http://ps2oraclestats.com/?stat=q4kpu&weapon1=1924&weapon2=1894&weapon3=7236

The Butcher and Betelgeuse, they're the same DPS, each with its perks.
But considering you guys are making the excuse that the reason the Betel is performing so well, is because of the new heat mechanic, "it increases the sustained fire output, leading to far more kills"... one problem, the butcher has 150 rounds... but it still severely lags behind the Betel. Tho with the excuse you guys gave, the Butcher, in reality should have a KPU similar to the Betel, probably a little under, but sure as hell not 15 KPU under. Betel performed the same before the heat mech... so it's not that which is making the stats so high.

Start Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:00:00 GMT | End Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:00:00 GMT

T9A "Butcher" | Q4 KPU | Daily Average: 40.86
Betelgeuse 54-A | Q4 KPU | Daily Average: 55.14

This shows the jump to get ARX weapons quite clearly.
http://ps2oraclestats.com/?stat=q4kpu&weapon1=301002&weapon2=301001&weapon3=80
http://ps2oraclestats.com/?stat=q4kpu&weapon1=301002&weapon2=301001&weapon3=301003

EM1 - did you ever want to do TR damage with NC rate of fire? Now you can with the Esamir Munitions 1, the gun we learned from our mistakes with.

So you're say that the Orion has good accuracy. I think that is Myth confirmed.

I couldn't say what the issue is, the TR do have from what I can tell the best performing HA ES weapon, the MCG, JH is in second and Lasher third, which of course make sense since Lasher is less a direct killing weapon (I know some VS hate that), and the MCG is a bit more adaptable than the JH.

The Carv is the second best, starter HA Weapon, which isn't surprising, this seems to stay consistent all the way from Q1 to Q4.

For me the strangest LMG comparison I saw was between the Q4 of the Anchor, MSW-R, and Orion. These three are in my mind equivalent of each other, however it's hard to do a proper comparison due to the fact that the Anchor has such a very high cost. So in my mind it should have the lowest playtime, which it does, and the best score, since for the most part only those dedicated to the NC HA would be using it (i.e. that is on average the better NC HA players would be using the Anchor). The MSW-R is fairly cheap so should have the second highest playtime, which it does have, and it's stats are fairly close to the Orion, with one major exception (not the only one but the big one) the SPA versus the .75, so I would expect the scores to be close to the Orion but with a bit higher with less playtime.

The MSW-R, from Q1 to Q3 it performs about how I would expect close to the Orion, but slightly ahead and a decent bit behind the Anchor.

However then we get to Q4 and things get a bit out of whack, the Anchor still remains in the lead, which again to me makes perfect sense due to the lower playtime and higher cost, but the Orion suddenly rockets to second place, I mean it for all intents and purposes it blows the MSW-R out of the water. I would have expected the scores to remain closer together between the two, but the MSW-R being slightly higher.

So what does it mean? Hard to tell without more data, but one interpretation, and some VS in here aren't going to like it, is that the .75 is indeed worth more than the SPA, at least for more experienced players. Reason is simple, as I mentioned earlier the big difference between those two guns is the SPA and movement modifier, outside of that the stats are fairly close, yeah some minor differences but nothing that major from what I can see. At lower levels players aren't quite as good at moving and shooting, so the SPA is worth a bit more, but as people become more and more comfortable shooting and moving becomes better regardless of which class you play more, and while on paper it doesn't seem like much, in game it could translate into much bigger gains.

As a side note the best performing LMG at Q4 seems to be the SVA-88 (I think that's what I'm seeing), a gun whose biggest defining characteristic is once again it's .75 modifier, it even out performs the Anchor at Q4 (though they are so close I would say it's tied) and technically has the higher playtime (though again not by much).

Now like I said that's a possible interpretation there are others, and without a bit more data it would be harder to nail down.

Don't try this "you guys..." eristic on me, tool. I don't reckon making any statements on the issue.

Anyway, the Orion isn't the best LMG after all but now the difference is "insignificant"? Way to backpedal on your idiotic arguments.

You keep on insisting that using statistics make up for the lack of arguments, even though it was already pointed out that they do not take into account most of the important factors. This is backed up by evidence - even the same guns perform differently in hands of different people, so assuming equal skill distribution or the same proficiency when forced into a specific playstyle is invalid.

Again, way to weasel out of providing a counterargument. You want me to point you to the oracle links in this thread that you've conviniently ignored?

You keep parrotting your own arguments even after I've already answered them. It is YOU (as the one who proposes a hypothesis) who has to prove how meaningful this is, all while keeping in mind what I've already said about Anchor users (you would have to prove that basically, only 75< BRs who main HA buy the Anchor, otherwise your argument has no basis) and high BR players in my previous posts. Anyway, people who don't "main" HA are actually more likely to be proficient as HA, because no other class has access to shield crutch that gives HA it's survivability; and Anchor handles nothing like other LMGs, most of which are balanced around the idea of high recoil and low accuracy compared to guns for other classes. Anchor doesn't have the highest DPS, but it's TTK is practically the same as Orion/MSW-R/Carv one (0.02s difference assuming 100% bullets hit the body, TTK with headshots is actually better than in case of Orion/MSW-R/Carv).

I won't elaborate on your oracle statistics too much because they are mostly meaningless, but I will explain why I think Betelgeuse is effective instead.

The performance of Betelgeuse is over twice as big as of Q4 Orion. But the performance of Butcher is also over twice as it is in case of Carv. As for Betelgeuse - others have pointed out the sustained damage effect (which Butcher benefits from too), but even more important is the fact that there is no ammo economy you have to worry about; pros have more problems with the lack of ammo rather than the enemies. Another benefit/fault (depending on how you see it) of heat mechanic that could improve effectiveness of players (or lower it) is the fact that it forces the user to burst fire and trigger control, as spraying and praying got seriously nerfed with the introduction of heat mechanic.

But above all, none of this is as meaningful as the fact, that there is a difference between TR and VS populations who use the two directive guns. The difference in skill of their top users.

You've made the stupidest and most common mistakes people who use performance stats usually do: you've assumed that every 100BR player is equally skilled, that all of the directive weapons fit their preferred playstyles and that they are always fully effective when using them. You've also assumed that every faction has the same population of skilled players. There is no evidence to support any of those assumptions, which I was also trying to highlight in my previous posts.

Dasanfall has a record of 398 Betelgeuse uniques and 330 Butcher uniques. This by itself serves as a proof that VS has more hardcore HA players, and the stats I am about to post confirm this.

The amount of headshot kills is almost twice the number of HS kills Butcher has, despite the fact that only differences in terms of accuracy stats between Butcher and Betelgeuse are the min. recoil angle (in case of Butcher it's slightly higher - by 0.02215 angle) and FSM (worse in case of Betelgeuse - 2.25 as opposed to 2 of the Butcher).

Let's take a look at leaderboards too, shall we? Click on the accuracy tab after opening the link.
Betelgeuse:
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/item_leaderboard.php?query=1894
Butcher:
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/item_leaderboard.php?query=1924

Over 30 of the top accuracy Betelguse users don't go below 30% accuracy.

Meanwhile, only 8 of the top accuracy Butcher users perform similarily.

Go ahead and check the list by headshot ratio as well.

Check the best score for shots per kill while we're at it, too.

I no longer feel like discussing anything else with a dense, selective simpleton like you.

0.75 ADS movement multiplier isn't an offensive stat. It does not affect your ability to shorten TTK on your weapon or lead your target (at least positively; in fact, you have to compensate for your own speed) - it affects your ability to avoid bullets and defend yourself with, supposedly insanely quick, ADADAD. It can become a factor in aggressive playstyle (as long as you don't run resist shield and active nano/adrenaline mostly after you get shot, but then the advantage is diminshed from 0.75 to 0.2m/s), if there is a very high latency and you're cutting corners, but then this is an issue for all 0.75 weapons (in fact, it's a technical issue with clientside hit detection in general) and there is no data proving that Orion users have 400-500ms ping, while players from other factions (especially the ones using other 0.75 ADS weapons) do not Thus, KPU doesn't really tell us anything about usefulness of 0.75 ADS movement speed; the closest measure of defensive potential is DPU.

Average DPU for Orion:
470 ± 576
Average DPU for Carv:
476 ± 602
Average DPU for MSW-R:
500 ± 608
Average DPU for SVA-88:
542 ± 725
Average DPU for Anchor:
602 ± 829

As you can see, although Orion has a small advantage over Carv, the stats that some of the people in here take for irrefutable word of wisdom show how little significance 0.75 ADS movement multiplier has. DPU is, of course, still a faulty statistic, but I'm sure this doesn't need any elaboration since people in here just enjoy looking at numbers.

But none of this actually matters, since Planetside movement speeds - including ADSing with 0.75 - are below average of what you can see in other online FPS. People who whine about it make things up on the go.

.

Probably the biggest BS post thus far to try and disprove the usefulness of ADS which is a blatant advantage ( you would be such tasty lightning gun food ), good job trying to disprove the value of statistics BY SHOWING STATISTICS, do you not see the blatant hypocrisy here?

Also holy straw man batman...................

Oh, so you're out of arguments already. What a twist.

I've specifically said I use them only in order to prove that even statistics show there is no "blatant advantage" with 0.75 ADS. What makes the statistics bad in this particular instance is the lack of interpretational context and more specific data, not the fact they are "statistics".

Feel free to QQ more and spout this "It's blatantly OP because I say so!" sillyness whenever you feel like it, you're destroying any credibility that was left to your side. Thanks for the favor.

HIPFIRE. How many times do I have to say that. Orion has less ammo, and thus is much less effective at hipfire. The Polaris, which is supposed to have "good" HIPFIRE does not have as much hipfire accuracy as Orion due to how OP it would be to be hipfiring 100+bullets.

So.... have less ammo makes it less accurate?

You are grasping at straws here now, trying to make the Orion sound inferior. The Myth you tried to debunk about the Orion is that it isn't an accurate weapon. When in fact it actually is. Ammo count has F all to do with accuracy. The Orion is an accurate weapon, myth confirmed. Frankly now, you are trying to drag this on and draw other aspects in to try and prove a point you never made in the first place. Just give it up already. Everyone knows that the Orion is a damn good weapon, maybe too good.

50 Mag Size LMGs
100 Mag Size LMGs
As you can see, the CoF difference between 100 mag and 50 mag LMGs is pretty substantial. Orion does have better CoF than other 50 mag LMGs, but the difference is much less than that between 50 and 100 mag LMGs. Would you trade a little better hipfire for better reload speed?

Was that the myth truth you was trying to debunk? No. it was simply accuracy. End of topic.

I see the lightning gun comment went right over your head... pretty much my argument right there bro.

I'm not claiming its OP at all, you've assumed that and are taking a huge stance on defending the "barely usefulness" of .75 ADS movement as if I do think its OP and well everyone else that mentions ADS movement even when the words OP aren't even in their posts.


Whats sad about your posts here is that you straight up point out that there isn't good data to prove or disprove the usefulness of ADS but try to do it anyway.
Your reasoning's aren't very well founded to even show that the ADS isn't as useful or straight up something that is as useful as people know or think it is, your throwing out completely valid data to make your point instead of considering it all the while interjecting data, claiming its definitive while containing metrics that are NOT very well known to your common player to disprove another players statistics on the matter that say the opposite of what you do, as if that trumps all other arguments and reasoning and stats on the matter.

Maybe instead of shooting down other statistical inquiries and data you actually consider them in a non demeaning way, not throw them out and not claim your numbers have more value then anyone with an opposing opinion that you have, clearly based on a frame of objective and biased logic as you've been showcasing here...

... GD-22S has faster reload speed, an equal and lesser min and max horizontal recoil, much better FSR, as well as better ADS CoF. They are both equal in vertical recoil and hipfire CoF.

The GD-22S is more accurate in terms of recoil per bullet wise but less accurate in terms of CoF. The way I look at it is that the GD-22S is trying to be a Pulsar C in LMG form while the Orion is trying to be the Jaguar in LMG form.


For those that don't know, 167 damage weapons will increase your ADS CoF by 0.06 per shot while 143 will only do 0.05, so 167 damage weapons will bloom a minimum of 0.36 (0.06×6) and 143 (0.05×7)will only bloom by 0.35 and each additional bullet will increase the difference by 0.01 in favour for the 143 damage guns. And for additional comparisons 125 will bloom at a rate of 0.05/bullet (0.40 minimum) and 200 will bloom at a rate of 0.07/bullet (0.35), of course all these are done at Max damage range with 100% accuracy.
So in the end 143 damage tier is best CoF bloom wise because you'll be more accurate then all the other damage tiers when everyone misses a bullet.

Are you seriously this dense?

I did it because only data can convince some morons in here, as they completely ignore any other arguments regardless of whether they are valid*. So I've proceeded to point out that even the more relevant data, which actually shows discrepancies in skill (instead of ignoring it and assuming that every 100BR is equally good - that's what pure performance/Q4 does) supports my argument; hence why I've used accuracy, HSR, shots per kill and so on. Is this too hard for you to comprehend?

What is more confusing to me is the fact that every time I've used other statistics I made my objectives rather clear. So it's not like I was throwing in other stats to counter someone's stats (although that would still do, why should I come up with explanations while other side is just pulling their arguments out of *** and makes up interpretations on the go?), I was referring to specific mistakes in their reasoning - like the assumption that every high BR is similarily skilled, equally proficient in the same playstyle and so on.

I'm tired of your lunacy.

You mean DPU (death per user)? Then just educate yourselves, simple as that; if somebody is coming in here, throwing in meaningless performance stats (read my previous post again if you don't know why I consider them meaningless) he should at least know what he's doing. I've explained why it's more accurate representation of 0.75 ADS movement speed impact on gameplay, and the people who cried about not being able to keep up with insanely fast Orion users think of it that way too, even though they didn't realize this and insisted on using KPU as a metric instead. Forumside being ignorant isn't anything new to me though.

*My main argument, the one I keep on repeating and the one that all of the whiners have conviniently ignored is that PS2 movement speeds, including 0.75 movement speed on certain weapons, are still slower than they are in other games like BF3 for example. So unless your aim magically goes off whenever you play Planetside 2, you should be AT LEAST as good when leading your targets as you would be in other, much faster online FPS; 0.5 and 0.75 might be different, but minimum human reaction time is consistent.

I didn't claim performance stats to be wrong if that's what you're implying.

What I've actually done? I've pointed out that using them to support the points of the whiners is meaningless, because they lack any context, while their arguments are full of BS assumptions.

So, you found one LMG that is more accurate. Does that automatically make the Orion inaccurate? Nope. The Orion simply is a accurate weapon. No matter how much you try to make it look like a bad weapon to prevent future nerfs. The end of the day the devs go off there own performance stats and there ain't nothing you can do to change. Or the minds of people who have half a brain.

Have fun now, I wont be responding to any further desperate attempts of yours. This topic is now closed to me.

Define accurate.

Because a quick glance, these weapons are more accurate, and this was a list i compiled in about 10 seconds, im sure i could find more:

Because if we check the stats: T16, T32, NS-15M, EM1, Pulsar LSW, VX29 Polaris, T9A Butcher, Anchor, GD-22S, MSW-R, TMG-50, Ursa, EM6, Gauss SAW S

Are all more stable and controllable than the Orion.

So id like to know how you define accurate.

Wow, just wow.... The myth was I quote "Orion is a much more accurate LMG" I have found a more accurate LMG, so myth debunked, sorry. You were the one who hopped on the pedantic wording train.

Wait, I've finally got this one. I didn't know what you were talking about at first, but now that I realized it, I'm fully convinced you have no idea what the hell is your argument in the first place. Like what is the correlation between lightning gun and differences in movement speeds between 0.5 and 0.75 ADS speed on guns in Planetside 2, since there is no ADS in Quake and the movement speeds are much, much higher than everything you can see in case of infantry in PS2? If anything, Quake is a perfect example which supports my main point: that even average teenagers who used to play Q3 on LAN parties could keep up with leading the target in really fast-paced FPS, so the below-average movement speed of infantry (especially when ADSing, regardless of movement multiplier) in PS2 should not be a problem to anyone who played twitch arena shooters.