a look at the new lynx and the new TR HC1 Cougar

I 100% agree with you. I don't like what they're doing with the Lynx. Previously, I saw it as a direct upgrade to the Jaguar for cqc purposes. Having worse recoil and less minimum damage than the Jaguar, it gains faster rpm at 800 as well as a better moving hipfire spread at 1.5, the best among all carbines, beat only by smgs. In addition, the 0.75 ads speed multiplier was very helpful.

Now, the ads speed multiplier is nerfed to 0.5, it's moving hipfire spread is nerfed to 2, it's minimum damage range is knocked down to 50m from 60m, it's max damage is knocked down to 125, and for what? Higher rof and better recoil?

I understand that people want a high rof weapon for TR, but when you're essentially removing a weapon that filled a specific role better than any other carbine that TR has, and replacing it, I'm not okay with that. Why should we only have 1, why not both the Old Lynx as well as the new Lynx?

Could be interpreted either way. "Jaguar gap" could be the gap between the T5 and the Jaguar where there's not really anything decent for TR.

It is overall equal or better at range if you do learn to compensate. I don't like recoil angle bias if I can avoid them but the GD-7F's isn't too bad - it actually has less angle than the TRAC-5. It does have a bit more randomness to it than the TRAC-5, but the Jag is also pretty bad in that way. The 500 velocity though, on an 845 RoF CQC carbine, is just imbalanced and GD-7F is stronger at range than it should be.

I think GD-7F should be toned down, with NC getting a weapon like the Jag instead of the stupid Bandit that's on the PTS. Honestly the Cougar would be a better choice to give the NC, maybe tweaked to fit in .75 ADS.

Statistics are also irrelevant to me in this case, as the TRAC-5 is used so much differently than the Mercenary. Not to mention as default guns...

I'm sure TRAC-5 has higher score per minute/kills per minute or whatever because it is a more close range focused gun which just tends to increase those numbers because so much of planetside happens at close range plus it's just easier to get close range kills faster.

Doesn't mean it's a better gun than the Mercenary, and most TR replace it with a Jaguar at some point for good reasons.

586 kills with the Merc on my current NC character:

https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428139972581946321/weapons

I'd have more but the AC-X11 is just so damned good. I'd rather have an AC-X11 than a Merc but I just know they'd never give such a weapon to TR.

I personally don't like the Razor: it is a better longer range carbine than the Merc I absolutely wouldn't argue that, but the Merc is just so good for when you can't choose your engagement ranges. Its very workable at close ranges, not as hopeless in CQC, and just has so much more effective range over TR's options without the severe trade-offs of stopping power the T5 AMC makes. It's a great all-rounder + mid-range power-house and TR's carbines are all more limited in one direction or another.

Been playing around with it and I love the Bandit a lot. More than the Cougar, in fact. The best way to describe it would be "like the VX6-7 except better in every way." Effective ADS range w/ ALS is ~40m, past that you're doing to have to be very careful with your shots.

Most impressive though is the hipfire - with ALS I was hipfiring targets down like, REALLY easily at 30m. Only gets better as you move closer too, obviously.

My main problem with it is that my preferred close-mid carbine is a silenced, HVA, laser X11 and that's a tough opponent for a new gun to go up against, because the X11 is just incredible

I'm reposting this here in case the OP-sayers haven't seen it yet.

Which NC Carbine fills the "Jaguar Gap" can be interpreted in 100's of way, but only ONE way that is remotely sensible or right.

There's NC Carbines (and the NS one) that sit between the Jag and T5, but there's isn't one that fills the Jaguars position, there is a gap.

The GD-7F is useable at range if you get very good with it, the Jag is useable at almost any range the second you pick it up.

The extra 33% ammo also helps a lot at range, as does the minimum bullet damage (more so than the raw DPS and RoF).

I know statistics are "irrelvent to you", as it DPS/RoF and anything else that doesn't fit with what you want.
But I still find it strange that they are so different from what you claim is the "reality".

I would take the Jag over the TRAC-5 and it doesn't surprise me that others would either, but then the stats support that position.
However they don't suggest that the Merc is a super Carbine compared to the TRAC-5s mediocrity, or indeed that the Merc is better than the Jag.

See again this is strange to me, the AC-X11 is an ok Carbine now, but it's still not as good as the Merc (as a generalist Carbine), or the Razor (as a long range one) - and it's very much not a CQB Carbine either. To me the AC-X11 is pretty much an "Aux it" Carbine, that is it wouldn't be used as a preference except for getting the medals.

The Razor on the other hand is wonderful at any real range, and is still ok even at CQB so long as your aim is decent.[/quote]

I can agree the Jaguar has an easier to use recoil pattern but it is absolutely not "useable at almost any range". It becomes worthless after a certain distance because of the horizontal recoil values. So does the GD-7F of course,

We're getting into why the stats of other players don't matter to me as much as the weapon stats. AC-X11 is better for me at most ranges than the Merc. It's my favorite carbine in the game(new VS Carbine is giving it a run though wow). It only lacks effectiveness while moving - and while yes movement is important in an FPS, it's no so bad you can't use it while moving(.32 vs. usual .3, and lower still than the .35 CQC carbines), just more limited in range and with a very low effective hip-fire range. Most of the time I want to shoot at more distant targets I'm taking the time to stand ADS or crouch ADS anyway too.

The other problem with the AC-X11 is how BS nanoweave can be against a low RoF gun, but ah well. Not enough players run full nano for it to be a major downside + AC-X11's headshots are devastating enough that you can make up for it - and it's accurate enough to go for the head.

The main thing is that it has the capability to down players from 0 to 60m+ quickly and effectively like no other gun - well except the SAW and maybe Reaper hah. Most carbines / automatics in general sacrifice close range TTK for long range accuracy or vice versa, AC-X11 has both.

It is usable at almost any range the GD-7F is, certainly it lacks at extreme Carbine range, but most Carbines do.

I understand that you like it, it's just that statstically it probably performs where it should with the postives and minuses it has, but that the main thing, whether anyone (you, me or anyone else - except the Devs maybe) likes a weapon isn't really a balance issue, it's a question of liking or disliking it, which is very much seperate from weapon balance as such (of course a weapon that literally everyone hates is unlikely to be balanced or perform well, but that's not really the case with any Carbine in PS2).

Personally the cougar feels like an nc weapon (and sounds like one), and the lynx does not feel like its rof is actually in the 900s.

It does feel like it's 900 RPM though... Not sure what you were expecting. Feels pretty much exactly like the 900 RPM guns in Battlefield 4 at least.

It needed neither. It was a good weapon as it stood. Maybe it needed a little of that random horizontal jitter removed, but other than that, it was a good weapon that served a specific purpose.

I hate it when useful weapons get reworked. TR needed a new carbine, not a rework of an old carbine for high ROF.

I guess devs thought backlash from changing Jaguar would be too high. And Lynx was rarely praised by anyone, so here's the reason of change. And TR asked for 2 things, got both.

This is the thing, prior to the change it was hard to find anybody with a good word for the Lynx....... or at least anyone on forumside that was a TR only player, basically the only position here was that it was rubbish compared to the GD-7F/Serpent and needed more RoF than them.

Personally I've always though it was great, as have a lot of top TR-only players, and indeed as have the statistics.

Trying them out a bit more... I like the Lynx. It's different, but it has some neat advantages. However, it bugs me that it lost 0.75x ADS as I don't know that it would be overpowered and it means the TR has completely lost their implicit 0.75x ADS advantage in the carbine category. I don't mean that VS/NC shouldn't get one 0.75x gun, they should and they are now that the Zenith/Bandit are going in (and both of those guns seem great so far). The problem is that VS has two LMGs with that property, NC has two ARs with that property, and TR had two carbines with that property... and now they'll just have one, same as everyone else. That seems a bit unfair. Maybe they really should just leave the Lynx alone and introduce the new Lynx as a different weapon.

The Cougar though... it's a cool concept and also a gun that I simply do not want. I already have the TRAC-5. I already have the Jaguar. I have (for the moment) the old Lynx. I'll have the new Lynx. I have my close-quarters weapons and they work fine. Why should I buy another? I really wanted a SABR carbine or a Pulsar C/Razor clone. Boring, yeah, but it's what I actually feel like I want and would use. Did anybody on TR want a 167 gun with the highest ROF for the 167 category? I think most people implicitly understood that 167 automatics are a rare thing for TR and that 167 TR guns have particular quirks to them. In the same sense nobody was asking for a TR SAW, nobody really wants a TR Cyclone. That's the NC's thing, why didn't you make the Bandit the 167/632 (other than that I rather like the current Bandit setup).

Does anybody even read these threads? Is anything actually going to change based on arguments or response? It feels pointless to even discuss this stuff. This is all happening whether anyone has a good argument against it or not. I know for a fact that if it goes in and nobody buys it that it'll just be left to rot, so it's not like they'll overhaul it into something useful. Well, at least the new NC and VS carbines will be fun, and Lynx 2.0 will be pretty neat on Engineers. But losing an extra 0.75x ADS carbine and getting yet another close quarters carbine have proven pretty underwhelming in trade for stuff that, while not bad, isn't really what I was hoping for either.

The time to empty them mag is why it feels slow firing, the ns-15m feels faster (I reload alot and don't ever seem to have enough ammo, but that's for a different thread)

What I don't understand is why TR didn't get two entirely new carbines. They went through the trouble of making two new weapon models, so why did they scrap the old design too? Two new carbines=more money in their pocket. I mean, you can say that SOE would've had to make a set of new Carbines for the NC and VS, but I don't see that as a bad thing; NC and VS would get more options too.

Cause that's too much work. Now it's rework of one and 3 more carbs. Your way 6 new carbs. I don't know if there is space for that. Then again, how many do you need before oversaturation begins.

Edit. Also, how would you add way more without removing what faction difference there is left? I don't really know.

NC needs something like the Cougar/Cyclone, CQC-167 damage. It would compete with the Bandit, similar to how the Carnage AR competes with the GR-22 in cqc. VS needs something versatile, say a carbine version of the Corvus/Ursa, with no damage dropoff, 143-143, and good recoil, to match the Pulsar C. Or, if damage dropoff needs to be a thing, make it a VS version of the Razor-GD23. Technically, it's only 2 more carbines at this point.

As for weapon models, take an existing model and add some fancy lights, change the magazine shape a little, and add a stock. Or not.

It can't have been too much work if they were bothered to change the weapon model for the Lynx. Also, who says that TR shouldn't have more carbines than NC or VS?

Jesus Christ, I logged in to say that you seem to start more drama than the guy you claim to be causing trouble.

Can we keep it civil here, people? You, a respected member of the LA community, should know better.

I just don't like people who argue for the sake of arguing. And I've just ended this drama, now that he's in a better place.

Where did this suddenly come from?
While high damage guns suffer from strong falloff, the reason high damage tiers are seen as an advantage for long range combat is that most guns don't sport the sustained accuracy to burst down an opponent at those 'longer' ranges, so people resort to single shots or short bursts.
For those engagements, high damage per bullet is an advantage, because high firerate doesn't factor in nearly as much.
At the same time, high damage means frontloading, so if both sides shoot at the same time, you may well win due to an initial damage advantage. A Gauss SAW has the same TTK as an Orion despite a lower DPS.