[Suggestion] Changeing the Trac-5 to 800RPM

Discussion in 'Light Assault' started by Pfundi, Aug 1, 2015.

  1. asdfPanda

    Different settings such as? The Orion has a faster bodyshot ttk within 10m, and the Anchor has a faster headshot ttk within 15m. Both have similar hipfire COF, with the Orion having a better moving hipfire, as well as the infamous 0.75x ads multiplier, making it more evasive ads. Anchor has more controllable recoil, and functions better in bursts at range, due to the faster muzzle velocity, better starting moving COF and lower RPM. Orion has a slightly faster short reload. These different traits make the Anchor a better headshot weapon in CQC while retaining versatility at further ranges, while the Orion is evasive ads at further ranges and has a better bodyshot ttk in CQC. There are tradeoffs, but functionally, they serve the same purpose.

    It doesn't, of course magazine size helps with engaging multiple targets giving the old Lynx an edge, which IMO is important for CQC. Although Lynx has more damage per magazine than the 845 guns, old Lynx of course had more. The old Lynx would do better against the GD/Serpent than the Jaguar and current Lynx.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on the superior hipfire. Like bugged C4, you just had to deal with the better hipfire, which made it a viable quality of the old Lynx to consider.

    It may do the same DPS, but 143@800 has a faster bodyshot ttk, whereas the 125@909 tier has a faster headshot TTK.

    Higher ROF is not necessarily better for CQC. You burn through your mag faster, which, on the current Lynx, isn't great due to the low damage per magazine.

    Better hipfire was a pro. The current Lynx handles arguably better, though in CQC, it loses out. I'm not saying that the current Lynx is bad, it just doesn't do as well as the old Lynx in CQC. In fact, at range, old Lynx had a better vertical recoil and 10m more minimum danage range. Even so, there are viable tradeoffs between old Lynx, current Lynx, and Jaguar to warrant an 800/845 gun.

    Sure, increase the Lynx ROF to 967, albeit making it a headshot monster, but what's going to bridge the gap between 750-967 RPM? A 800/845 RPM weapon would add more weapon variety.

    Do increase TRAC RPM to 800. It'll be practically the same thing as the old Lynx, just without (don't kill me)better hipfire, softpoint, and 0.75 ads, and slightly better horizontal recoil and reload. Yes, it's strong right now, but it isn't Jaguar strong. It's not like the Jaguar needs a nerf, and while the Jaguar exists, there's little point in using the TRAC right now, in my opinion.
  2. Corezer

    Both within 15m need 4 headshots to kill, one just does it faster. it fires fast enough that a player cant move their head through my still dot without dying. The 845rpm carbines can theoretically do this further but that theory is negated when you consider recoil. At max STK which is pretty close for all of em, the lynx will edge out the competition.

    125/967 would be insane with headshots, maybe if they took away SPA and lowered the velocity to 400 flat for long range it could work out, but as controllable as it is out to 15m with a 15m 4hstk it would blow the gd/serpent out of the water in the hands of above average players or better.

    I really don't want to see a change tho, cqc is determined by positioning and initiative than anything, right now it reaches far enough, and performs well enough up close that between it and the cougar you can cover the full LA spectrum.
  3. Iridar51

    Wrong. They functionally serve different purposes due to these tradeoffs.
    More controllable, lower DPS, lower RoF, rewards accuracy - these are the traits of a mid range weapon, where you operate from cover, and start shooting first.
    Easier to control recoil, but with lower maximum potential, higher DPS, higher RoF - these are traits of a CQC dueling weapon.

    These weapons are as different as Mercenary and Jaguar.

    GD-7F / Serpent can't engage multiple targets, why do you think Lynx should be able to?


    No. I'm gonna use a hyperbole just so you'd see how ridiculous this argument is. Let's say there's a bug and suddenly TRAC 5 does 5000 damage with each shot, oneshotting all infantry at any range. Then developers remove TRAC 5 and add a new carbine, called "Koala", similar to TRAC 5, but does sensible damage instead. Then you complain that Koala isn't as good as TRAC 5.

    It doesn't matter whether advantage is gamebreaking or not. The fact remain that it was not intended, and would have been fixed at first opportunity. It may as well have never existed.

    Difference is within 0.03 seconds. Irrelevant.

    Lynx's damage per magazine is not low.
    Higher RoF is necessarily better. Higher RoF applies damage more smoothly and reliably. Compare Lynx to a sniper rifle. Which has a higher chance to inflict at least some damage while spraying in the general direction of the target?
    Additionally, both Lynx and GD-7F / Serpent will require an additional bullet to kill when transitioning from 15m to 16m+. Higher RoF weapon will fire the additional bullet faster.

    Lower RoF, high damage is preferably for range. High RoF is better for CQC. It is a universal truth for all weapons.

    Armistice and Hailstorm. Especially if Hailstorm, per my suggestion, gets changed into 112 damage model with 937 RoF.

    As an alternative, I'd love to have a low caliber, high RoF, but low DPS carbine that's good at range. That would be a truly unique weapon, similar to how Cyclone is the only high damage weapon that's good in CQC. But as far as CQC goes, TR is well covered.

    Whatever shortcomings you may think the Lynx has are completely arbitrary.
    Overhype. Lynx with 967 RoF will have the same headshot TTK as Bandit has at 632: 0.19 secs. Lynx isn't particularly more controllable than the Bandit, and the need for 4 hits vs 3 is already a disadvantage.
  4. asdfPanda

    You're only proving that the two weapons are different, but not proving that they serve different purposes. Yes, they have different shooting styles, but not different purposes. The Anchor functions well in CQC because of it's 15m 3 shot headshot range. The Anchor can reach out due to it's 167 damage tier. The Orion functions well in CQC because of it's above average rate of fire. The Orion can reach out due to it's 0.75x ads move speed and it's retention of a 4 shot headshot at range. Different playstyles to each weapon, same purpose.

    RoF is not a factor in CQC, moreso when skill level increases, and it is even detrimental when skill level is low, as you burn more bullets per second when missing. Low RoF does not mean that a weapon won't do well in CQC. For example, Cyclone dominates in CQC, and the Mercenary and ACX-11 can put in some serious work with a laser sight.

    I suppose it's how you interpret these traits, so I guess we're at an impasse here, because I think that the Mercenary serves the same purpose as the Jaguar(Versatile CQC-mid), which you don't. You even go as far as to say that:

    Our ideas about weapon roles are clearly far apart.

    What's the point of the Terran mag size trait if it doesn't offer a distinct advantage in engaging multiple targets? Furthermore, GD-7F and Serpent have a faster body TTK and do better at range. Tradeoffs.

    Not, I've used all three weapons extensively before the change. Anecdotal, maybe, but still backed up by the fact that old Lynx is better than current Lynx in CQC due to:

    -0.75x ads speed multiplier
    -1.5 moving hipfire spread
    -5720 damage per magazine
    -10m more minimum damage range
    -143 damage tier
    -Faster bodyshot TTK

    Because that would be the truth, Koala isn't as good as TRAC-5000. :)

    TRAC-5000 would be the most broken weapon, yes. Would you, however, deny that fact, like you deny the relevancy of the old Lynx's good moving hipfire? If you drove a tank for the 8 months that the fall bug existed, would you not use the safe fall implant, because it was a bug, and may as well have not existed?

    Sticky grenades never dealt double damage, right? Current Engineers are just as effective in zergs as old Engineers are, right?

    The bug wasn't fixed, and it did exist. Because it existed, and served as a notable advantage in battle, I treat it as fact. Like I said, I guess that we will have to agree to disagree here.

    Was it a bug though? Speculation, perhaps?

    Why do you draw the line at .03 seconds? Something to do with tickrate? Why is the Cyclone used over the Bandit, then?

    Was trying to compare the old Lynx to current Lynx. Old Lynx can inflict more damage over a longer period of time before reloading. Advantageous in CQC.

    High RoF is not better in CQC. Like I said before, higher RoF is increasingly irrelevant as skill becomes higher. Higher RoF punishes missing more, as skill decreases.

    Higher RoF in the same damage tier is relevant. Higher RoF in different damage tiers will depend on the damage tier.

    No. High damage is not necessarily preferable for range; for example, 143 tier and 167 damage tier require the same amount of headshots to kill at range. Low RoF is not necessarily preferable for range. Weapon bloom values are between damage tiers and firerate. But what will deliver headshots faster, with better bursts?

    Not an acceptable alternative. Both suck at range; the Armistice has bad damage per magazine. I would, however, enjoy a Hailstorm with 112@937RPM damage tier.

    Something similar to the TORQ, then?

    I don't think that the Lynx is a bad weapon. The old Lynx performed better in CQC though.

    What is your argument against weapon variety?
  5. Iridar51

    It is one and the same. Sniper rifle is very different from a full auto shotgun, which allows it to serve a different purpose.
    They only serve the same purpose in the sense they are both used to shoot people dead.

    You got it backwards. Lower RoF punishes missing more. You're thinking about it from the wrong angle.
    Imagine two weapons. They both have 4000 damage per magazine. One fires 10 rounds per second, each round does 100 damage. The second weapon fires 5 rounds per second, each round does 200 damage.
    They both expend ammunition at the same rate - 1000 per second.

    However, because the first weapon fires twice as fast, it has double the chance that at least one bullet will hit the target as you spray over it. In CQC, it's better to use a high RoF that inflicts the damage more reliably. Even at the cost of Time to kill. Because otherwise a BASR would be the best weapon. Enter the skill argument. If you don't miss any of your shots, BASR IS the best weapon. But it's impossible.

    What you are talking about is not RoF, it is ammunition expenditure rate. Not an issue if you have more rounds to burn to begin with.

    Yes, it does. AC-X11 is **** in CQC, even with laser sight. Exactly because of its damage model.
    Just because weapon can do something, doesn't mean it's good at it, or does it better than competition. You can snipe with pistol, but a sniper rifle will do better.

    Don't start with traits. This game doesn't know what a trait is. Lynx has higher DPM regardless.

    I already addressed all that...

    I would deny the fact that balancing needs to be done around the weapon that broken due to a bug.
    The change was not in patch notes. It broke the established system where EVERY automatic in the game has 0.5 larger moving CoF than standing CoF. Yes, pretty sure it's a bug.

    When only TTK is concerned, I'd draw a line around 0.1 seconds. Nothing to do with tickrate, completely arbitrary. 0.03 seconds is a nearly non-existing amount of time.

    Cyclone is used over the Bandit for its better hip fire accuracy and half the hip fire CoF bloom. But that's mostly for classes that don't have access to Carbines. I don't really recommend Cyclone over Bandit for LAs or engies.

    As long as weapons have the same DPS, higher RoF weapon is preferable for CQC.

    Just as high RoF is preferable for CQC, high damage is better for range. It requires fewer hits to kill, and each shot has a high chance of killing the target before it hides into cover. Damage per shot is the reason why BASR rock and SASR suck. Additionally, in PS2 specifically, high damage weapons for some reason have lower horizontal recoil, which puts higher RoF weapons at a double disadvantage.

    No, something better than TORQ, which can't outrange even the default CQC oriented Cycler.

    Only against excessive, false variety. About 2/3 of PlanetSide 2 weapons have no reason to exist, because they are barely different, and I'm not talking about cosmetic versions.

    What you're suggesting is a weapon with accurate hip fire, 75% ADS, high RoF / high DPS and high DPM. That weapon is already exists in the game, its name is Jaguar.

    I don't want a battle of textwalls. Please try to keep your reply short and to the point.
  6. asdfPanda

    At CQC-mid ranges. With a quick reload for LMGs. So yes, they serve the same purpose, to excel in CQC and mid range. They may go about it differently, but they achieve the same thing: To be versatile in CQC and mid range.

    RoF and ammunition expenditure rate is the same thing, no? Rate of shootmans? Shootmans rate?

    You're thinking of damage expenditure rate, Damage per Second, DPS. If we're talking about 30 round mags, that 10 RPS weapon would only have 20 rounds left, while the 5 RPS weapon would have 25 rounds left. Which can kill more people? Assuming damage tiers are the same, the 25 round one can. High ROF punishes missing more, due to shooting more rounds in the same amount of time you're off target, and suddenly having to reload.

    More rounds to burn is nice, but the "problem" with the current Lynx is that ammunition expenditure rate was increased at the same time the damage per magazine was decreased. That's doubly detrimental.

    Your bolt action example is nice, but the problem there is damage per magazine, not rate of fire, no?

    AC-X11 is not crap in CQC? Quick reload, high damage per magazine, good hipfire(crappy for a carbine, but still), good TTK.



    Isn't TRAC-5 and Jaguar both existing false variety? Wouldn't bumping it to 800RPM give TR more variety?
  7. Iridar51

    I'm tired of arguing with you. You don't care what I have to say.
    "It is X"
    "No it is Y"
    is the sum of our discussion. I'm ending it.
  8. asdfPanda

    Hold up. Ignore EVERYTHING else, but please read the part of my last post about RoF and ammunition expenditure rate. It is the same thing, right?
  9. Iridar51

    You have a weapon that fires 100 rounds per minute, and has 1000 round magazine.
    You have another weapon that fires 10 rounds per minute, and has a 10 round magazine.
    They have the same DPS.

    Which weapon expends ammunition faster?

    Yeah I guess proper term would be something like "relative ammunition expenditure rate" or "procentile based ammunition expenditure rate". I don't speak English and it was a long day. But that is what I meant.
  10. asdfPanda

    100 rounds per minute expends ammunition faster. RPM= RoF = ammunition expenditure rate.
  11. Iridar51

    I don't really care what word to call it. I'm just trying to tie together DPS, DPM and RoF.

    As long as two weapons have the same DPS and same DPM, the weapon with lower RoF will be more punishing, because it will be less likely to inflict at least some damage as you spray over a target.

    Sometimes one lucky shot with a high damage / low RoF weapon will hit the head and do more damage that way, but it is RNG. You don't want to rely on RNG in combat.

    As long as DPS and DPM are the same, weapon with lower damage per bullet and higher RoF will be better for CQC. That's what I was talking about.

    What you were talking about before is different. You were talking about a weapon with higher RoF AND higher DPS, but lower DPM.

    Basically, T5 AMC vs Armistice.

    T5 AMC has RoF of 652, DPS of ~1550 and DPM of ~5700.
    Armistice has RoF of 896, DPS of 1867, and DPM of 3750.

    By your logic, T5 AMC is better for CQC "because it is less punishing", because it can fire for longer while blooming slower.

    Yes, T5 AMC is less punishing due to lower RoF and higher DPM.
    But it is also more punishing due to higher RoF and lower DPS - has harder time effectively dealing damage to targets in CQC.

    I guess now I see why it takes us so long to explain this to each other. It doesn't make any sense unless we dig into it.
  12. asdfPanda

    Yeah, that's the gist. I would however say that TTK matters more than DPS.

    TTK matters the most in CQC, that's the draw to weapons like the GD-7F. I'm not saying that the T5 AMC is good in CQC; it has a bad combination of damage tier and RoF, but a weapon like the Anchor is, having a low RPM and superior headshot TTK within 15m.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that firerate is not a determinate factor in a weapon's CQC capabilities; TTK is. It just so happens that weapons that have a fast headshot TTK can have a low RPM, therefore lending itself to traits such as better sustained fire as well as forgiveability, compounding such a weapon's efffectiveness in CQC.
  13. Iridar51

    TTK vs DPS is a double edged sword. When taken into extreme they both stop making sense.
    I.e. BASR's TTK = 0, doesn't make it a great CQC weapon.

    Or a Weapon with 1 000 000 damage per shot and 10 second refire rate would also have TTK of 0, and a huge DPS of 100 000, it would still suck for CQC.

    I prefer DPS because it's cleaner and more universal. There are no ifs and buts about it, it's not affected by nanoweave or overshields like TTK is, even though in purely theoretical situations DPS can be less accurate than TTK.

    Headshot TTK within maximum damage range isn't a holy truth either.
    In ideal circumstances, 167 damage will have shorter headshot TTK within maximum damage range, because it applies damage efficiently, with minimal overkill.
    4 headshots with 143 = 1144
    3 headshots with 167 = 1001

    So if you go 1m beyond maximum damage range, 143 damage weapon will keep its 4 shot TTK, while the 167 will need 4 shots.
    Having a bit of overkill can help when dealing with wounded targets or HAs.

    And with more realistic accuracy, where not all shots are headshots, 167 weapon will require 2 headshots and 2 bodyshots, while 143 damage weapon will require 3 headshots and 1 bodyshot, if no nanoweave.

    I wouldn't limit CQC distance to just 15m, so just the virtue of having a better headshot TTK within 15m isn't enough to make the weapon better overall.
  14. Reclaimer77

    I really like TR carbines and think they are in a great place. Each one brings something a little unique and they have flexibility.

    I main VS and our Carbine hierarchy is basically Pulsar C > everything else. So much so, you are pretty much playing wrong if you aren't using the Pulsar C. Sure we have other carbines, just why would you want to use them?

    Not sure how one can justify a Lynxx buff. You hold down the trigger, pull your mouse down and to the left a bit, and the person dies instantly. In ADS of course.

    Better hipfire for CQC? That's what shotguns are for. And honestly giving a bullet-hose great hipfire accuracy just wouldn't be balanced.
  15. Iridar51

    Uhhhh, no, that's what SMGs are for. Which are exactly bullet hoses with great hip fire accuracy, and not imbalanced.
    Shotguns actually don't have good hip fire, it just doesn't really matter with the effective range of 3m.
  16. Corezer

    I think you underestimate other offerings by the lynx which create a balance issue, namely it is a lot easier to control and has a tighter moving COF. a 967 lynx would **** all over a bandit for everything but the ADS speed and 0-10 performance, but 10-15 the all headshot feat would be much harder to perform on a bandit due to recoil with much more punishing misses and at 15+ all headshot kills with bandit only happens when the opponent stands in a corner and lets you do it, as range goes further the tighter moving CoF really shines in hitting that little pea off the enemy's shoulders and for body shots in general... I don't want to think of it... stop trying to get my favorite TR LA gun nerfed damnit!!!
  17. Iridar51

    I just said it isn't. What makes it easier to control? Horizontal recoil? Roughly same as bandit. Vertical recoil? More than bandit. Recoil angle? More than bandit. Lynx may be more controllable than Serpent / GD-7F, but not Bandit.
    Tighter moving CoF is offset by higher CoF bloom per shot.
    There is literally 1 shot advantage in accuracy, but after firing 8 rounds Lynx will have worse CoF than 143+ damage weapon.