ACX-11 needs 5 more rounds in the mag and greater projectile velocity

Cross purposes; I may not have explained that well.

What I meant was that it was okay up until Christmas because people had low levels of nanoweave. That was point 1.

Point 2 - completely separate - was that I was playing with the idea the AC-X11 could cause the enemy to flinch more than it currently does. But then I remember how painful it was trying to shoot people whilst my aim was bouncing all over the place. I hated it; so I wouldn't want that effect bringing back even if I benefited from it.

First, this is completely anecdotal and is also posing a straw man argument. API shows stable relationships among factions and weapons and is derived from such a gigantic population, moreover with data over time.

Stat budgest huh? And they weight the characteristics based upon what exactly? Oh, right, you neither know whether they even use this method or, if they do, how they would weight the various factors. A far better approach to balance, IMO, would be start on paper with some ideas about the primary stats needing to be balanced- so with the ROF damage per shot combo you would probably be looking primarily at a range of resultant DPS. Then, and this is the important part, you would collect data on the entire population and compare how the different items are performing in the actual game and use this data to look for various trends- if, for instance, you find that an item is consistently under performing on various metrics then it needs to be looking into as to why this is occurring. A stat budget is worthless if the actual in game results show a stable discrepancy over time- this would be an indication that the guiding theory behind your stat budget is wrong and needs to be looked into.

See, I disagree here again. If you are trying to find "the sweet spot" for a value and you see that it is currently under performing then the fastest way to find that sweet spot is not by making the smallest steps possible towards the value but rather is precisely by what you are calling "over buffing". So, lets say you have 150 damage on a weapon and it is sub par and you think the best way to address this is upping the damage- the question is how much. So what you do is you start with a value you think is probably higher than you need, say 250. You put this in and find, ah yes the performance when from X (under) to Y (over) so now you know that the value you are looking for is somewhere between 150 and 250 and as such have placed a clear limitation on your search space and know that any further adjustments will bring you ever closer to the "sweet spot" without ever going outside the range of performance established by X and Y.

It is perfectly natural and logical to compare any item or faction with the best item or faction because if it is acceptable for that item or faction to be performing at the level that it is, then almost by definition this means that balance is achieved by bringing the other items/factions in line with that item/faction. NC loyalists presenting data on performance metrics as evidence of areas where it is likely that improvement can be made has nothing to do with VS or TR loyalists doing the same- I think what you are experiencing here is just a reflection of what you also see if you look at the API data over time. NC, overall, has been on the bottom according to most of those metrics and more NC items are on the bottom within the respective classes so it makes some sense you would see more grief being presented by NC loyalists.

Now, do not get me wrong, I agree that there is a lot of exaggeration that goes on and I agree that personal bias will always play a role- that is why it is up to the developers, who have easier access to the actual data, to use that data and help moderate discussion by interjecting a balanced and objective view of reality. Sadly, they do not really seem interested in doing so and hence it is up to the players. I'll be the first to say that if they make the changes I propose and then the API data shows that the ACX-11 is suddenly out performing every other similar option that they should tweak these values.

Funny thing is, there are a lot of NC who are just trying to get the developers to wake up, take a look at the API data performance metrics, and consider making some changes. In fact, all the NC need to do is just that, say, hey, look at the data and see why it shows what it shows (and has shown since launch). If there is some great explanation why things are just fine where they are despite the data giving us the figures that it gives us then I am sure we would all like to hear that. Think about the Vanguard, for instance, there is not a lot of outcry about it's performance and yet post-nerf Prowler was outscoring Vanguard by 20% and the post-nerf Magrider was outscoring it by 17%. NC can stomach this, to a certain extent, because we realize that a large part of this difference is how much better the Prowler and Magrider are at dealing with infantry and that the Vanguard only really shines in MBT vs. MBT combat. Now, personally, I think this is an example where tweaking should be applied but probably should be applied to the XP reward of MBT vs. Infantry because it still does not make sense that the Vanguard, in order to fulfill its role, must by definition earn less reward.

I dont really see how that is a point in favour of increased bullet velocity. An easy demand is to simply ask for the god saw philosophy to transcend into other NC weaponry, and that philosophy is:

Extremely long reload times.
The biggest recoil of all the automatic weapons in the game.
CoF when ADS moving is worse than other weapons of its class.
CoF bloom, both when ADSing and firing from the hip, would be worse than other weapons of its class.
Despite doing 200 damage per bullet, its DPS would be average, because it has fire rate of 500RPM. Other alternative weapons would do more DPS despite individual bullets doing less damage.

However the damage per magazine would go highly in favour of the AC-X11. Because in trade for the above you would have the same magazine size as the rest, and be rewarded for investing into weapon add ons like the compensator and advanced grip.

"I liked the Merc, so the AC-X11 must be just as good"

Sorry, you've disbanded any credibility you had left. Reread the thread, use the weapons, do not comment until you have something constructive to say. a.k.a. a month from now after using the AC-X11 the entire time. NC has fine and balanced infantry currently, aside from these weapons, sans the SAW.

Will read that wall of text when I have more time, need to go out now.

Oh? Is THAT what I said? Oh no, it isn't. Thanks for exactly proving what I did say though. NC, especially you, like to exaggerate and spread false information to try and back up your "point". I don't NEED to test a weapon to know that anything you say shouldn't be taken seriously, especially as a fact. Case in point "VG does the lowest DPS of ALL MBT's!"

Well, if this site is accurate: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Amnj8jnZLDIOdDRjMURYRlY0bDlpNjNfSW11MV83X1E&gid=0

And we assume a 2/2 MBT with a secondary then when we look at DPS we have the following:

NC Main DPS:
HEAT = 438
HE = 325
AP = 500

TR Main DPS:
HEAT = 500
HE = 371
AP = 571

VS Main DPS:
HEAT = 413
HE = 313
AP = 476

I will not both continuing with TR because it is the clear DPS winner and adding the figures for the Vulcan just exacerbates the already existing difference in the main DPS.

Notice, there is a difference in main cannon DPS between NC and VS where the differences are all in favor of NC by the following:

HEAT = 25
HE = 12
AP = 24

However, if we then look at the DPS for the secondary weapons we see that the Enforcer has DPS = 429 and HRB has DPS = 462. This is a difference of 33 DPS so if we assume 2/2 MBTs then yes the total DPS of the Vanguard is just below that of the Magrider.

In any case, this thread is not about MBTs and there is no reason to bring that up in the first place. Even if Dash was incorrect about MBTs (which, by this analysis he is not) that has exactly nothing to do with a discussion about a different topic. Not only this but people make mistakes- I know I do- and the idea that you should disregard everything someone has to say because they made a mistake is bad form.

I said constructive. Thanks for proving my original point.

No.

Firstly, that site isn't correct I don't think, it hasn't changed since the tanks got the reload speed changed on HE, but HE isn't something you'd measure DPS for anyway (Except if you want to complain how TR can have decent DPS against vehicles with HE, but anyway)

Secondly, his exact words were

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/nc-hit-harder-but.152450/

So no, the VG does NOT have the lowest DPS main cannon of all the MBTs.

As for secondaries, that's not what he stated, no matter how much you'd want it to work in your favour, that is the EXACT point I've been saying, how things get twisted, turned, exaggerated, selective arguing and whatever else along those lines get thrown around in argument as a "fact" how NC is "weak".

Anyway, the actual DPS of the HRB isn't at all accurate to a realistic number. The DPS should be calculated to the refire time of settling to CoF where if memory serves, it's the lowest, though it's irrelevant even though it is the lowest because there's so many situations where every secondary changes drastically.

So yes, by his analysis, he IS incorrect, because he clearly stated MAIN cannons in yet another attempt at the usual "we're so weak" debate. I really need to go out now, so if you didn't want a discussion on that subject, why bring it up?

You had no original point, until you, yourself can be constructive without actually using selective reading and twisting what people say so it fits your argument, you have nothing. That's not the first time you've tried it either. Never did I even mention the merc, and never did I state the AXC was just as good. And you talk about credibility lol.

Okay, okay points taken- thanks for the input that has been constructive and on topic.

Moving back to the subject.

ACX-11 needs 5 more rounds and increased projectile velocity in order to be competitive with other options.

I feel increasing to 30 rounds in a mag would be too much considering damage per magazine.

I feel that without an increase in projectile velocity the weapon will still underperform at the very ranges where it is clearly designed to be competitive.

I think I'd prefer if SOE did it in two patches; raising the velocity substantially before they added more rounds if needed.

Go away.

No problem... of course you will be maxed out at ~600 RPM if you do. You can't have that and insane ROF.

Yeah it's definately a lot worse after the last nerf, it's still be best NC option for close/mid range though, due to it being the only one with decent RoF and DPS (dispite having a small clip).

The T5 AMC doesn't come far off although it lacks velocity, the Trac 5 too, but then there's the Jag which is still arguably the best all-round Carbine (just below the GD-7F in close range, better at medium and still very useable at long).

I wouldn't mind the idea of making weapons more factional, but as things stand that would leave the NC without a remotely competative CQB carbine, in a similar way to the NC lacking a proper CQB LMG.

The AC-X11 has a couple of problems.

But basically if you haven't used it, imagine the NC6 if it had a clip of 50 and lower bullet velocity.



I'm struggling to see where people are wanting a "higher stat budget" though (ignoring that such a thing from MMORPGs doesn't really translate to MMOFPSs).

All the problems with NC weapons come from them being subpar in some way, be it DPS, be it clip size, being a shotgun (again) etc.

And any NC weapons that are good (like the GD-7F) the other factions want nerfed!

Funny how many different personal preferences we can see in one discussion .

After getting the auraxium medal on my GD7F, I wanted something different.

I like how different the ACX feels in comparison, which is why I personally would not want to see an increase in bullet velocity. It would make the ACX easier to use and more deadly, yes, but the heavy, guttural feel of the gun right now is one of my favorite things about it. Seems like there are plenty of other options for speed.
In crazy situations where I really have to be at my best, I still revert back to the GD7F, but as a break and something different, the ACX really fits the bill.

The one change I do think would be cool is the 5 extra rounds. No more than that for me though . Beyond that is really nerfing any challenge in it for me which doesn't sound fun. I think this change alone and I would probably not need to revert to the GD7F anymore.

I'm not quoting all kinds of raw numbers because, in the end, I would rather just go by experience on the battlefield.

Not sure if I'm reading you incorrectly, but not Rate of Fire, but bullet velocity (the bullet flies, not fires, at a higher speed).

The NC6 SAW still feels heavy and guttural dispite having faster bullet velocity than the EM6 (and the same as the EM1), because of its low RoF.


The reality is the bullet velocity likely still wouldn't be as fast at the Razor, but it should at the very least be equal to the other NC Carbines.

After the nerf I do not think the GD-7F is a good weapon- for it's niche it is lacking when compared to SMGs and Shotgun's. Pre-nerf, when it was on par with similar damage*ROF options yeah it was nice because it was the only non SMG/Shotgun CQC option.

No offense, but I fail to see how the projectiles moving faster would make ht weapon less guttural and personally I think it would make the weapon feel heavier and feel like it was shooting a high damage round because right now it feels like when you throw a baseball underhanded.

I mean, even after the changes I propose it would be 1) the slowest firing carbine in the game, 2) the carbine with the least ammo in the magazine, and 3) the carbine with the worst movement penalties- all these things make it as different from the GD-7F as night is to day IMO. I feel like you do just about anything to the ACX-11 and as long as had a ROF 345 RPM slower (that is > 40% slower BTW) than the GD-7F they will always feel like different weapons.

No offense taken. Just my personal opinion really, so always a chance of being wrong when I express it. When I think bullet velocity, I think GD7F, or Blitz depending on the situation. Maybe I'm confusing it with Rate Of Fire in terms of feel.

I guess what I'm thinking is bullet velocity will affect TTK just like ROF does. If I think about the TTK on the GD7F vs. the ACX, I think of speed being the primary advantage of the GD7F which bullet velocity is part of.
To me, the ACX is more about TTK focusing on harder stopping power of each individual bullet. Placement and aim play a larger role to compete successfully against a faster gun. Increasing bullet velocity would not just make the ACX more effective at range (where bullet drop would be most noticeable), it would also reduce the TTK in close range since you still have the greater stopping power but now your bullets are reaching the target faster.

I wouldn't be willing to trade stopping power for bullet velocity. I know you don't feel any trade should be made, but compromise is often the best way to get something through. (someone call congress and explain that to them please )

Well, the ACX-11 has been under performing all along so my interest was in getting it up to snuff- hence why I am not really interested in discussing trade-offs. That being said, a previous poster mentioned a slight increase to the long reload were we to have more bullets in the magazine and that is something that I could get behind if need be in order to get the weapon up to par.