[Suggestion] Changes to the CARV +.75 ADS

Nop, faction flavor is fine. If anything, it should be enchanced and improved. And if anyone thinks another empire has a gamebreaking item that he needs to have, it's time to switch factions. Faction loyalty is a relic of PS1. In PS2, we are meant to play all factions. Don't play Horde OR Alliance; play BOTH.

Suggestion: Play game more, piss and moan in forums less.

God some of you are the whiniest bunch of little pansies ever. Nerf this, buff that, SOE plz, HIGBY PLZ!!!

I move for a forum NERF. Shut up and play the game.

No, just NO. Give TR and higher rate of fire instead. 800-825rpms sounds about right for the CARV

It's called the MSW-R.

Negative, Orion, SVA, and BG need buffs to compensate the ADS modifier being changed to .5

It's not about the faction per-se, I wouldn't mind buffs to the weapons to make up for it, it's more of a problem I have with taking the highest DPS weapons for the highest survivability infantry class and then putting additional survivability modifiers on them... synergy can easily break things that would be acceptable as only the sum of their parts...

I am not aware of what SOE was thinking, but they weren't thinking much when they made that call...

From Higby:

"I'd like to do a TORQ damage model LMG. Not sure if it's a good idea to replace one of the current LMGs (Probably Rhino or Bull - since they have a lot of overlap) though, so it'll probably wait until we're ready to release a new suite of LMGs, not sure when that will be."

http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/...ion_trait_apply_to_our_lmgs/co531pb?context=1

God I absolutely despise the lower damage tier weapons. >_<

Well, lets just hope that he also gives it .75 ADS or some people will still be back here arguing about how OP that is. And then he'll also have to make it the TR starting LMG because it's just not "fair" if he doesn't. And he might as well kneecap the Orion at the same time. It is the Higby way.

How about a "NO"?

Because it is a fact that any time they touch anything, 5 more things get broken. So I would rather have TR be the way it is just so they dont mess up anything else. Or we may find out that now it shoots backwards and kills heavy with first bullet.

LOL stop cherry picking.

we sorely need power fist replacements for the knives. challenge people to fisticuffs!

Oh i would be SO all over that in a heartbeat!
I would love to challenge people to a gentlemanly round of fisticuffs after a rage-tell!

how was i cherry picking? i was listing the things the tr had that were either best in class or unique in some way, and if you read my other post after that youd see that i said i didnt think any of it was overpowered in a major near game breaking way, except harasser vulcan.

ok, thanks. i has never used oracle of death before and wasnt aware of what all the different things meant other than what the acronyms stood for.

The Carv isn't really suited to having 0.75 ADS and the MSW-R is good enough without it. If any TR LMG should get the 0.75 ADS modifier it ought to be the T-32 Bull to further underline it's "spec ops" jack-of-all-trades nature.

At which point, it is an NS-15M, +.

IMO:
several LMG's are clear downgrades or could use something.
And yes, the VS should lose the 0.75 ADS speed.


Reworks:
NC:
EM1: to differentiate from the NS-15m, gets 698 rpm, 75 bullet mag. (100 magsize should be TR stuff.. 60 rounds is too close to the NS-15M and the Bull). Probably lower FSRM.

Gaus Saw: well.. as is, although I could see lowering mag size to 75.

Gaus Saw S: 469 rpm, 200 dmg bullets. 60 rounds/mag, buffed muzzle velocity (660 m/s; almost the fastest of LMG's and AR's).
This is the "Tross" to the Reaper DMR; LMG style.
Compared to the Gaus Saw, for the lower RoF and lower mag size it gets:
slightly lower vertical recoil; slightly lower FSRM, higher muzzle velocity. Access to SPA. Higher accuracy ADS moving (0.4 probably). I'd give it the 2x burst fire mode of the EM6 too.

EM6: again, should NC have 100 round mags? I have auraxiumed it, it is a good weapon etc.
However, as a "generalist" weapon the muzzle velocity is weird to me: 570m/s.
Yet, the Anchor has 600m/s. (and lower vertical recoil, and lower horizontal tolerance, and..) IMO: switch the velocities; the Anchor should be more CQC-ish than the EM6 anyway.

GD-22-S: as is. Major option to be the starter weapon.

VS:
Well, if we remove the 0.75 ads from the Orion, should it get SPA? Probably yes; possibly less side to side recoil etc. Making it rather close to the MSW-R.

Flare: lower mag size to 40 rounds, lower FSRM. This to have a difference between Flare and Ursa. (or more than current at least)

I would also go hard on the SVA-88 vs Pulsar LSW: atm both are 698 rpm, both have 75 rounds.. and the winner is.. SVA-88!
Pulsar LSW: that FSRM of 2.45 needs to go. I'd like to see the angular pull go too, lower sideway recoil to 0.19. Bam, very nice weapon.
SVA-88: loses the 0.75 ads, gets lower side-to-side recoil, only 40-50 rounds /mag, but very fast reload. Isn't that what Vanu are about? Accurate weaponry, not big mag size but fast reloads etc?

TR:

are now the only ones with several LMG's with 100 round mags.
Carv-S: horizontal max recoil down to 0.2.
Out of ideas right now.

Why do I get the feeling that some people envision VS heavies with assault rifles instead of LMGs?

The Carv is fine as it is. It's actually the only starter LMG that makes sense in that role, being a direct LMG equivalent of TR starter carbine/AR, when that should be (an upgraded) Pulsar LSW for VS, and while more blurry for NC (EM6 or GD-22s?), certainly not the Saw.

Regarding that .75ads issue, whether it should stay or go, i think it's better with it in (variety), and with at least one on all empires but could be dealt with differently. For instance there could be an added damage tier drop over range + CoF penalty, as is the case with CQC carbines/ARs.

You don't need to invent stuff much, like some odd .19 horizontal recoil on Pulsar LSW. Just look at what's done right on carbines/ARs and transcribe that to LMGs with their specific penalties (hipfire, wider CoF, slightly higher vertical recoil) and mag sizes. In my opinion, if (mostly TR/VS) LMG balance feels wrong, it's because they don't follow the same ruleset as do carbines/ARs. If they follow one at all.

Well.. sort of guilty as charged.
However: there are no assault rifles with 167 dmg and 40 round mag; max is 30.
So, the 40-round flare: it would be "intermediate"?

Anyhow: for most general play, I would actually prefer an AR on my heavy.

Agree.

I've always thought that forums should be restricted to members only. Sorry free to play's, you haven't earned the right to Forumside.