A short guide to "faction traits"

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by HerpTheDerp, Sep 13, 2013.

  1. HerpTheDerp

    Since this still seems to be a topic of heated discussion, let's clean up some misunderstandings by comparing the empire's default Assault Rifles.

    Why Assault Rifles? Because that's the weapon group where all three empires start with weapons of identical role. It would be pointless to compare the Orion(CQC LMG) to CARV(mid-range LMG) to SAW(long-range LMG) for example.

    Damage

    Gauss Rifle: 167@10m - 143@75m, RoF: 600, DPM: 100.2 - 85.8
    T1 Cycler: 143@10m - 125@65m, RoF: 750, DPM: 107.25 - 93.75
    Pulsar VS1: 143@10m - 125@65m, RoF: 698, DPM: 99.81 - 87.25

    (DPM values divided by 100 for easier comparison)
    No surprises there, TR has the highest DPS. NC and VS DPS is pretty much identical.

    Recoil

    Gauss Rifle: vertical recoil per minute: 180, max horizontal recoil: 0.175, first shot recoil: 0.645
    T1 Cycler: vertical recoil per minute: 202.5, max horizontal recoil: 0.225, first shot recoil: 0.675
    Pulsar VS1: vertical recoil per minute: 153.56, max horizontal recoil: 0.200, first shot recoil: 0.605

    Contrary to popular belief, NC does not have the highest recoil weapons.

    Accuracy

    Gauss Rifle: stationary ADSCoF 0.03, moving ADSCoF 0.3, bloom per minute: 36
    T1 Cycler: stationary ADSCoF 0.1, moving ADSCoF 0.3, bloom per minute: 37.5
    Pulsar VS1: stationary ADSCoF 0.1, moving ADSCoF 0.25, bloom per minute: 34.9

    NC weapons get the stationary accuracy bonus here.
    Bloom of NC weapons is exaggerated; they have higher bloom value, sure, but they also have lower fire rates, so the two cancel themsleves out. This is an universal rule for almost all weapons in the game. For example, the bloom per minute of NC6 Gauss SAW is 35, despite the "huge" bloom value of 0.07. The only exception to this are very high rate of fire weapons like Serpent or TAR, which actually do have above-average bloom.


    A note about ADSCoF. The value in spreadsheets specifies the radius of a circle the game "draws" to determine the possible area of where the shot actually went. As you might remember from school, the area of a disk involves squaring. If the radius is two times bigger, the area is not two, but four times bigger, and so on.

    So if you just look at the ADSCoF values as raw numbers, they underrepresent the difference in accuracy. For example, just comparing 0.3 to 0.25 makes it look like the Pulsar VS1 is ~17% more accurate than the Gauss Rifle and T1 Cycler.

    But if we use the CoF a radius in a cricle like the game does it:
    0.3 * 0.3 * 3.14 = 0.2826
    0.25 * 0.25 * 3.14 = 0.19625

    The Pulsar VS1 is actually ~31% more accurate than the Gauss Rifle and T1 Cycler(When ADS-moving).

    Mag size, reload

    Gauss Rifle: 30 bullets, 1.95/2.6 reload time, mag damage potential 5010
    T1 Cycler: 40 bullets, 2.755/3.55 reload time, mag damage potential 5720
    Pulsar VS1: 30 bullets, 1.75/2.2 reload time, mag damage potential 4290

    Nothing interesting here. Bigger mag, slower reload.

    Simplified summary or tl;dr

    NC
    DPS: normal
    Recoil: normal
    Accuracy: normal
    Extra traits: stationary first shot accuracy bonus, 10m longer weapon range

    TR
    DPS: high
    Recoil: high
    Accuracy: low
    Extra traits: mag sizes

    VS:
    DPS: normal
    Recoil: low
    Accuracy: high
    Extra traits: no bullet drop, above average bullet velocity, lowest damage per mag and ammo pool

    OMG TR UP?

    This is where the spreadsheets end and the game begins.

    Vertical recoil can be negated with player skill. Horizontal recoil can be partially negated with the grip.
    The importance of accuracy decreases as the distance to target decreases.
    Stationary CoF bonus is rather meaningless because stillness means death in most cases.
    Damage per mag is a variable dependent on the playstyle. If you "rambo" into rooms full of enemies, it's critical. If you use a more tactical approach, it's largely irrelevant.
    Damage per ammo pool is important to the LAs, who usually operate away from other players(Engineers), in most cases it will directly translate into the body count.
    • Up x 2
  2. Phyr

    Faction traits are more an "idea" rather than a guideline.
  3. Fredfred

    Marauder: Excellent
    PPA II: Good
    Enforcer c85: :eek:
  4. EagleGuardian

    These comparisons are quite good, but you only compare one type of weapon (Assault Rifle), which can only be used by one specific class (Medic). It may be worth looking at carbines (Light Assault, Engineer) as well?
  5. Van Dax

    nice summary.
  6. Sossen

    Your take on recoil is a bit skewed for the Gauss, I'd say. It has considerably less horizontal recoil than the other two, vertical recoil can be countered more the more skilled you are. So there really needs to be a curve depending on your skill level. The vertical recoil for the Pulsar will be easier to manage for a low-skill player, but the vertical recoil for the Gauss Rifle is completely manageable with enough skill. The horizontal recoil can't be countered though, so for a player with a lot of skill the recoil stat should be the lowest for the Gauss Rifle.
  7. Delnar_Ersike

    Nice guide, you're only really missing Muzzle Velocity (Cycler < Pulsar < Gauss) and crouch ADSCoF (Cycler has 0.05 more for moving crouch than the other two) from the Accuracy part and maximum ammo from the mag size section (Pulsar has 1 more reload's worth of bullets than the other two, making up for its low damage per magazine); however, the differences between the 3 guns for these factors is pretty minor compared to everything else.

    Damage per magazine is important to everyone, not just LAs, since it can be the difference between taking out a few more people in a room versus having to duck out to reload. Maximum total ammo damage (damage per mag * total mags) is what is important to LAs; when calculated, Cycler (34320) leads, while Gauss (30060) and Pulsar (30030) are pretty much tied.
  8. Kodaa

    Very nice, informative read. Thank you.