Don't forget TR SMGs for the april balance patch

Hailstorm is utterly inferior to Blitz and Sirus. It is garbage and needs to get fixed.

Armistice is only slightly more arguable but realistically... no. Eridani and Cyclone have better effective range as well as gaining more damage per mag w/extended mags.

Doesn't the Armistice have the lowest TTK out of all SMGs though?

The Armistice is doing perfectly fine. By average KPH it's actually the best (non-premium or non-NS) SMG.

SMGs and their average KPH:
NS MKV- 31
TR Armistice- 22
NC Cyclone- 21
NC Blitz- 21
VS Eridani- 21
VS Sirius- 21
NS NS-7- 20
TR Hailstorm- 20

The MKV probably gets a higher average KPH simply because it's new and only more experienced players use it (it only has 750 users compared to almost 14,000 for the NS-7).

Really all the SMGs are pretty well balanced at this point. Sure the Armistice does a little better, but 1 average KPH difference doesn't mean all that much. And for that same reason the Hailstorm is doing perfectly fine as well.

Stats found here.

I don't give a flying manatee about the averaged stats of bad players.

Ookay... not that I'm agreeing that your position is a logical one or anything, but here's more data then.

These are the average KDRs for people who have auraxed each SMG. That's over 1,050 kills with a single firearm. These people are probably not "bad players".

TR Armistice- 1.26
NC Cyclone- 1.26
VS Eridani- 1.2

VS Sirius- 1.25
NC Blitz- 1.2
TR Hailstorm- 1.15

Data from same source as above.

Cyclone is slightly better.

Ah kk.

How does playing the game/using a weapon for a long time mean someone isn't bad?

Answer: It doesn't.

And the EM1 is utterly inferior to the T9 CARV. I'm happy that TR is getting some positive attention in the upcoming patch, but lets not push it.

It means that at least they have a good amount of experience with that weapon. And experience correlates with being "good".

I mean yes, maybe they just were shooting their buddies to stat pad or something, but that seriously can't be what you're thinking of.

Things like weapon medals and BR levels certainly don't guarantee that a player is "good", but there is a strong enough correlation to it that it's a legit substitute.

Otherwise I'm happy to about available alternative data sets that you might have, but if your argument boils down to "I don't like the characteristics for this weapon" when really it performs as well as any other weapon, that's a very weak argument for a buff.

OK. You're the original poster so what do you have to back up your claim? You're rejecting the data from people actually using the weapons and how well they are doing in game.

What will satisfy you? I'm thinking what you are going on is theoretical TTK which requires CQ non-moving targets and perfect aim.

I think you are the first person that I know of that thinks the Eridani is better then the armistice. But then again you do have a whole lot of unusual ideas about this game.

Its experience.
Any player who went as far as getting an Auraxiam, probably likes the weapon or is a HIGH BR players just looking for Auraxiam medals.

Using a weapon for a longtime definitely does not determine a good player or experienced player.
But getting an Auraxiam with a gun, definitely does refer that the player using it, knows how to use it.

Actually Cinnamon is incorrect. The Armistice does have a shorter TTK, though by so little that it really doesn't matter.

Armistice TTK:
125 max damage @ 896 RPM (14.93 RPS) = 1866.25 DPS = 1.7 s TTK

Cyclone TTK:
167 max damage @ 652 RPM (10.87 RPS) = 1815.29 DPS = 1.76 s TTK

So the difference is 0.06 seconds, which while an advantage isn't really one to complain about.

Armistice eat through ammo way too fast.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks

Actually you are incorrect.

Cyclone takes about 0.009 seconds less time with all body shots no misses and since they are both even numbers of bullets to kill 0.0045 with all head shots no misses. No big difference between the two but I think that Cyclone has better accuracy but more damage drop off.

Comparing thousandths of a second. Meh

Your thinking does not make a difference in actual stats.

According to stats, they have the same accuracy.
But the Cyclone has a 0.01 higher bloom per shot.

Just saying that for argument's sake. ^

I prefer bullets to kill, where you take time = 0 as when the first bullet fires. Since infantry have 1000hp without nanoweave and 1250 with, the critical points in time are when the damage totals those values.

Armistice:
Time (s) / Damage
0.00 / 125
0.07 / 250
0.13 / 375
0.20 / 500
0.27 / 625
0.33 / 750
0.40 / 875
0.47 / 1000
0.53 / 1125
0.60 / 1250

Cyclone:
Time(s) / Damage
0 / 167
0.09 / 334
0.18 / 501
0.28 / 668
0.37 / 835
0.46 / 1002
0.55 / 1169
0.64 / 1336

So the Cyclone has technically a better TTK for a non-nanoweave target, and the Armistice is better against nano 5. The actual difference in TTK doesn't matter as in game they would result in trading kills.

What sets the two apart is the fact that the Cyclone:

-has better damage/mag (4175 vs 3750)
-extended mag benefits the weapon more (+1670 vs +1250)
-less H Recoil (0.2-0.3 vs 0.35-0.4)

If the Armistice were to be buffed, I would say that +5 rounds on the default magazine, as 33 rounds bring the damage/mag to 4125 and the weapon may miss a tad more often. Small changes at most.

I said that cyclone was slightly lower ttk just out of interest and only replied again because someone else posted what I think is misleading data. The difference is very small as I think I made as clear as I could.

And from my experience and looking at the data I say that the biggest difference between the two is that cyclone is more accurate and that drop off affects armistice a little less. Extended mags are also a lot more effective on cyclone I think.