Faction Imbalance

The Lasher and Jackhammer aren't LMGs. I'd put all LMGs as better than both of those at almost all ranges. The MCG is more competitive with LMGs than the Jackhammer and Lasher, but only to a certain range, just like the Jackhammer is effective at close range.

Strange; I am not a particularly good player. In fact, I think I'm quite average, and yet, I felt like I did very well with what I had on NC; especially when I played to the strengths I had. For example, on TR, you simply can't engage someone at 100 meters. You'll miss. You won't do much damage when you hit. But on NC, running my GODSAW, I could engage at any range. Again, I'm average; but I had a Tech Plant fight where I racked up 30 kills just shooting targets at long range (before I died I mean).

The GODSAW /SAWhas a particularly strong effect thanks to clientside hit detection and damage. I have very low ping - just 20 ms at all times. If I shoot at a target at 75 meters; and allow the gun to resettle it's recoil, fire again, wait again, fire again; and all the shots are headshots (not difficult; it has 100% accuracy on the initial shot!) then the target dies. They cannot react in time (or rather, they can, but clientside damage means their reaction was too slow, and they still get rid as they round the corner/get into cover on their client).

Another example is the Vanguard. I can't fight enemy vehicles in a Prowler. I can, but not nearly as well as the Vanguard. It has a literal "I win" button. I very very rarely lost against an enemy MBT because I could guarantee safety or guarantee victory depending on the enemy's actions.

Again; I do think NC is the weakest faction, as the above benefits are more difficult to use by average players, who determine more often than not who wins alerts. I think NC is perfectly competitive; even superior, at very high skill levels. NC maxes are a problem I feel; shotguns on a MAX are just awful; but with a 2k cert investment you've got the strongest anti vehicle max. The SAW is great; but not for someone just staring to play the game. Vanguard shield won't win you a 1v1 against an enemy MBT if you're in an open field with a flanking Prowler. Neither will it help you if you don't have a gunner; and they do.

These things take certs. The Prowler's advantage doesn't require a gunner; you could flank and beat a Vanguard or Magrider. Yeah you probably won't win a 1v1 without a gunner, but you make up for it with a flank. The Vanguard with it's lower DPS won't shred a target as well with the flank. The Magrider can strafe whether you're BR 1 or 100. Doesn't take a single cert, and is instantly easy to identify as useful, and isn't difficult to do. The default NC max has a shotgun and a one shot rocket; you aren't going to lay out high splash damage with that rocket. You will miss enemy maxes just once; then die to them. A TR max will hit you with one or two pounder hits, the Vanu max will hit you too.

Really, NC isn't bad. It just need more of an investment, and more practice; but also better rewards you. A solution to NC's current problems should involve changing what it starts with; for example, a GD-22 for the Heavies, a Raven for the starter max rather than a Falcon.

My discussion about the MCG included the changes to it. The Jackhammer was buffed recently too.

I do. One, two, three and so on...

I appreciate your sense of humor, but now you're just derailing.

You're saying the MCG isn't as good as I think because it can't reliably kill people at 31 m and further due to recoil. Shotguns in this game are broken, they can't even 1 shot reliably from 1 meter. They are just not consistent in this game, the Jackhammer being no exception. MCG has 100 ammo capacity, 200 with extended mag, or rapid fire attachment, and on and on. Jackhammer gets a huge ammo capacity upgrade of 3 more shots, 12 in all, terrible fire-rate and equally terrible reload speed. After that, there's only a high probability that you can kill someone with burst fire at 1-10m, but 10m and further forget about it.

No, I'm saying the MCG isn't as reliable as you think because the MCG has innate spread (like a shotgun), making some percentage (based on range) of your bullets miss randomly, no matter how skilled you are at keeping your crosshair dead center on the target.

The MCG has 125 rounds, and the BRRT attachment is basically required for it to be fully useful. You lose 50 RPM without it, meaning you've got an 800 RPM 143 damage weapon with innate spread; really not an upgrade from a 750 143 with inpoint accuracy (comparatively). The BRRT gives it 850 RPM, making it a bit more competitive.

At sufficiently close range that doesn't matter. But then we can talk about the Jackhammer. I mean, you don't sound like you do very well with it, but the Jackhammer seems to rack up higher KPH and K/D across the entire playerbase. So without being anecdotal, the Jackhammer seems to be "Better". We can continue to look at individual pieces of equipment, and I really don't think that's NC's problem:


For example, for LMGs:
- LA1 is the highest KPH + K/D "standard" LMG
- GODSAW is the 2nd highest KPH + K/D Aurax LMG

But the defaults:

All approx the same KPH - but the SAW has the lowest K/D. I keep saying this, it's really just the defaults that are kicking the NC down. TR's default isn't liked too much either, which is why you see so many MSW-R users.

As soon as all those SAW newbies get some advice on what to buy, they grab a GD-22:

And now are on par with the TRs who grabbed MSW-Rs, even though the MSW-R is better at short range! Imagine if NC got the GD-22S as their default.

Again, I don't think arguing specific matchups is gonna help NC. They have options. Options which are good. They just don't start with them; I mean, no one starts with all the options, of course, but Vanu starts with their MSW-R/LA1 equivalent (short range high DPS LMG with fast reload and softpoint)! Of course all those little NC heavies with SAWs are gonna lose.

Victory is determined by a few guys with tens of thousands of certs sometimes, but the reason for NC losing more alerts than Vanu and TR is just that they don't have the same victory potential at 0 certs, and there are just enough players at all times who don't have the ability to make tons of certs, and so they don't spend them on stuff like new guns often, that this makes a difference. Re-read what I posted earlier; about a newbie Vanguard vs a Maggie or a Prowler... or an NC max vs a TR or Vanu. They are worse when stock. Certainly not so with some certs!

So are the factions imbalanced? That depends, do you compare them with all their stuff or do you compare them with a hundred thousand certs? I do think NC is the weakest with 0 investment, and I do think this should be changed - but I also think it's the best with a lot of investment; few enough people get to that point that the weight of the newbie is greater, though.

You can easily take MCG in this statement and replace it with most NC guns.

It's common knowledge that shotguns are not consistent in this game. I don't own the Jackhammer, I have seen and heard enough from my friends and other players who do own it to know that it's not worth the certs. And everything I've seen and heard about the Jackhammer directly reflects on the behavior of the gun when I have tested it on non-moving targets in the VR. Your get gud argument is unfounded. If the jackhammer does get higher KPH and k/d, its probably because other factions are dumb enough not to keep a safe distance from the players using it.

So your solution to how badly the Jackhammer loadout is and how it performs in comparison to other faction HGs is: tough ****, deal with it.

Comparing HGs together is similar to comparing MBTs. It's pretty important to make sure they are balanced with one another. You make it clear that HGs aren't balanced, but you don't care because it is the other faction with the disadvantage.

Another non-NC player that likes to speak for all of NC. Two words. Speculative ********.

First off, where are you getting your stats?

I'd have to agree with you. Personally (as a VS main), I detest the Jackhammer. Trying to fight it is stupidly difficult except by simply outranging it - and that's not exactly doable in most buildings (i.e. where pretty much all the points are) / biolabs. Same with NC MAX's if I'm honest. Sure, you've got limited clip size - but you can insta-splat the first 2-3 dudes through the door and, if the enemy isn't particularly coordinated, a single MAX can perma-splat all the enemies that stream in 1's and 2's through the door. It's only when there's a coordinated squad that a single MAX will have trouble and, frankly, any "single" person should have trouble with a coordinated squad.

Actually, I'd argue that since neither the TR / NC default is a pure-CQC-oriented weapon, the problem isn't the weapon, it's that most combat is CQC... which is why the TR / NC CQC-specific weapons outperform.

If you actually review all empires fairly objectively, this is true for all of them. They all have CQC-stuff and mid-range stuff and long-range stuff and high-RoF stuff and low-RoF stuff etc.

Only partially true. Yes, the VS start with the Orion, but 1) they don't get softpoint, and 2) if you check the weapon stats, the MSW-R is almost across the board a direct upgrade of the Orion. I can't remember when I checked the Anchor, but it's pretty much the same situation there, IIRC. It's no wonder the Orion is generally far outperformed by those guns.

I can't say that your comment isn't contributing to the issue, HOWEVER..... at least in my experience, the reason NC usually lose an alert is because, as an empire, they play like Re-Tar-Ded pigeons overdosed on E. The number of times I've seen 96+ NC camped out in the nearest biolab (or trying to get INTO the nearest biolab) to fight 24-48 enemies, while being backhacked all over the map by small 1-12 groups...... well.... let's just say it doesn't give a good impression of your commanders. The usual times I see NC winning an alert is because they win almost by default. In that the other two Empires were concentrating on each other, and a small number of NC basically ghost-hack their way to victory.

Like most things, the empires seem to be assymmetrically balanced. The NC seem to be a very high-skill-floor, high-skill-ceiling empire in that it's HARD to play NC, but once you learn how, you're godly. To me, the TR seem to be medium-skill-floor, high-skill-ceiling in that their weapons are easier to use than NC's, but can be pretty damn good once you learn how. The VS seem to be a low-skill-floor, medium-skill-ceiling in that they're easy to get into, but unless you're seriously godly, you're gonna cap out reasonably soon. At least, that's my impression of playing with and fighting against all empires.

About the Orion: you're right. It doesn't get softpoint. It is almost exactly an MSW-R, but with slightly better hipfire accuracy - but it also misses out on the advanced laser sight (not that most people run this on an MSW-R or Anchor though).

Most of the info I've been posting can be found just ingame, if you mean the stuff I just posted in my last post, check dasanfall: http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/items/weapons/LMG

Well... all guns, really, but the spread of the MCG is much higher. The SAW has 100% accuracy on the first shot, with a bloomof 0.07 per shot when ADS. The MCG has a bloom of 0 (it stays static) but the accuracy is 1.5. That means the MCG's spread on all shots when ADS is equal to the accuracy of a SAW after 21 rounds being fired at full auto. Compare your potential killing ability with such high bullet spread!

Besides, I didn't say it's NC players specifically who don't make many/spend many certs. I said newer players, who simply aren't skilled enough to do so. They are less likely to get out of the hole that is using a SAW in a mostly CQC based game. NC players are affected the most by this because I believe their starter equipment is the hardest to use.

It might have slightly better hipfire, but the best stats I can find say that it has longer reloads, worse vertical recoil, inconsistent horizontal recoil with FAR worse tolerance (nearly double), and worse aimed accuracy to make up for it's better hip accuracy. Between that and the inferior attachments, I still say that the MSW-R is a straight upgrade.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that the DA information is an "all time" kinda thing, so given the number of changes that have gone on, it's not really representative of the "current" state of affairs. Once again, I wish that Oracle still functioned. It's "last 30 days" functionality was pretty good for judging the effects of patches etc.

This might be true for HA, but I find the Merc and the Gauss to be pretty decent guns. Besides.... everybody always says that starting characters should play Medic and Engy for the strong non-killy cert income for rookies.

Here's some advice from a competitive player who has played the game since beta: every faction has its merits. The EM6 and Anchor are probably 2 of the top 5 LMG's in the game because of their high damage tier. The vanguard is the most versatile tank because it has a heavy shield and can use the same types of ammo as the prowler, while the Magrider has weaker versions. Also, if you learn to fly the reaver is the best AI farming tool because the Airhammer is still so good. Also the cyclone is the highest dps smg. You just have to know which weapons are good and how to use them, memorize recoil patterns, etc, which at br 44 is just not long enough. Ive had probably 4-6 br 90+s since this game came out and am still perfecting my use of weapons on all 3 factions. Play the game more, you will learn that of all its flaws, ps2 does asymmetric balance pretty well.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the Orion was better. Missing Adv laser sight and soft point are already so large that I felt that was what was worth mentioning.

It's true that the DA data is all time; but honestly the guns we were discussing haven't changed so significantly within the past large period of time that I think this is OK.

And as far as comparing HA stuff as a guide: this is true. But when discussing medic, engie etc the difference just doesn't seem to be quite as pronounced; especially if newbies aren't learning how to use their gun very often (as you said, they are likely reviving/repairing etc a lot more).

Okay, but you didn't specify newer players in that paragraph, so it sounded as if you were making a bunch of assertions on the total NC player base. I see what you meant, now.

I’m going to use Campagne and CleverAssName’s argument because they put it best:

I think DBG didn't think much about the question of "how do guns work?" It makes sense that if you have a high ROF, you should pay for it in recoil. If you have a low ROF weapon, you should have lower recoil. With PS2, it's absolutely counter-intuitive. It's why NC is so difficult to play, and results in people leaving to other factions, because NC requires you to overcome the disadvantages of a low rate of fire weapon while having the recoil of a high rate of fire weapon.

I disagree entirely with your premise that NC's weapons are less accurate while having higher recoil. I posted data earlier referring to horizontal recoil, showing that NC's LMGs were significantly less recoil heavy horizontally:


Now, add vertical recoil and accuracy:



NC vertical recoil vs Vanu and TR: NC has an average of .432 across all the LMGs, higher than Vanu and TR, which are both almost equal. However, the first shot multiplier is a bit lower on average for NC. Still, yes, NC has higher vertical recoil... but the lower first shot multiplier and lower rate of fire means your gun physically moves up less for any duration burst longer than 1 bullet, because the rate of fire is lower. TR has the highest recoil for any size burst above 1 bullet, with their first shot multiplier being the highest, their recoil/s the highest, and their horizontal, by the way, is also the worst.

Now for the accuracy - that is, the bullets doing to where you want them to go when your mouse is exactly on target.
NC beats out the other factions significantly in small bursts, including one bullet being fired, with their incredibly low non-moving ADS accuracy. It blows Vanu and TR out of the water, being under half, and almost 1/3 TR's standing still accuracy! Insane, really.
For movement, NC comes to par with Vanu and TR. TR has just slightly lower initial accuracy when they're moving and ADSing.

Bloom is worst for the NC, which means when you're moving, with your worse bloom, your short bursts will miss more often. However, if you are standing still, the difference is so massive compared to the other factions, that this difference in bloom still puts you at an advantage significantly; again, when not moving.

But if you take a look at the amount of bloom you accumulate over time, again the TR gets the short end of the stick. Vanu has the least; and that sort of is ridiculous considering that they don't have bullet drop, which further adds an invisible 'bloom' so to say.

So no, the NC actually feels less vertical recoil than the Vanu and TR, for all length bursts above 1 bullet. The NC also feels, significantly, not just a bit, less horizontal recoil. They also have incredible accuracy while standing still, and average accuracy - on par with the other factions - when moving.

I understand your feelings when it comes to this considering we hear all sorts of things all the time, and our confirmation bias gets in the way of coming to the true answer sometimes. Looking at the stats straight up, NC isn't bad off. Not at all. This further cements my view that it isn't NC's arsenal, but again, their initial setup and playstyle which causes them to do poorly.

I don't discredit you numbers, as far as I'm aware they are accurate and seem to reflect the numbers shown in-game.

However, I'm afraid I must completely oppose your interpretation of the data on accuracy. In PS2, to put it bluntly, the lower the RoF the higher the bloom, generally speaking.

Stationary accuracy matters extremely little. Only in few select cases does it ever provide any advantage. In PS2 as anyone and everyone knows, if you don't move, you die. Every once in a blue moon one happens across someone so green they stop and crouch before firing, and they are windshield kill.

Regardless however, here are a couple of graphs that show CoF growth, comparing bloom rates between the SAW (at 0.07 per shot) and the EM6 (at 0.06 per shot), based on the following formula:

{[total bloom] = [initial standing ADS CoF] + (1 + [bloom per shot])^[shots fired]} *The scales are in increments of 10.*

For the SAW: 0 + (1.07)^x

The SAW exceeds 100% of its original CoF after 69 shots, at 68.064... when y = 100.

For EM6: 0.03 + (1.06)^x

The EM6 exceeds 100% of its original CoF after 80 shots, at 79.027... when y = 100.

These are the two closest blooms there are in the same category, excluding duplicate values. I can do the other damage set(s) & bloom(s) too if anyone cares.

The high damage, low rate of fire weapons have greater bloom per shot to "make up for a lower volume of fire." The NC features predominately high damage/low RoF weapons and has exclusive access to the 200DMG/500RPM damage model. These weapons require higher aim than other weapons as their users are punished significantly greater for missed shots, while simultaneously causing a greater likelihood of missing otherwise accurate shots.

What.

Disclaimer: I am not saying NC weapons are bad, or even that they are generally worse than the competing factions'. All I am demonstrating here is that the NC's "long range," accuracy-dependant weapons have some of the least accuracy of automatic weapons.

(My Math 30-1 teacher was right, my knowledge of exponentials did come in handy some day! )

You're looking at bloom per shot, not bloom over time.

Yes, in 4 bullets your bloom is higher than an MSW-Rs in 4 bullets, but the SAW's bloom in 480 ms, or 4 bullets, isn't any different than the MSW-R's bloom in 480 ms, or 6 bullets: .4 + 1.07^4 = 1.71 vs .35 + 1.05^6 = 1.69

4 bullets for the SAW will do equal, or more depending on range, damage than the MSW-R's 6. Recall the stuff I posted earlier about TTK comparing the higher damage lower RoF guns to something like the MSW-R, the SAW, Anchor etc gain valuable damage thresholds for each headshot, allowing them to skip to kill thresholds earlier, possibly skipping even more time, while 143 and lower damage tier weapons do not.

Anyway, back to the current topic, this means the effective bloom is the same. This stays the same at higher bullet counts too, the MSW-R will **** out 15 bullets to the SAW's 10: 2.37 vs 2.43 (now the MSW-R is slightly worse off, significantly moreso than it was better off at at 4 bullets, take a guess at what's going to happen as the bullet count continues to increase...).

That depends. Are you using the term 'feel' based on LMG statistics or in-game observations? If it's the latter, then I disagree because recoil on NC is 'felt' more due to their low rate of fire. Stats won't show that.

While Tr and VS get to hold down their key/button to fire. And who the hell stands still when firing, unless you're using a sniper rifle? Moving is such an important variable for infantry fights.

The biggest problem with your comparison is it's limited to LMG, which is a small subset of class-specific weapons. The other problem is that you're only comparing statistics of vertical and horizontal recoil, and not comparing it with rate of fire and velocity. That matters immensely. You're not going to come to an accurate conclusion if you omit data.

Let's take a step back and remind ourselves what the thread is meant for:

This is true, but, a MSW-R will fire 4 bullets faster and with a greater accuracy that the 4 fired by the SAW, which is where the inaccuracy is most apparent. They will do more damage, but only if they actually hit. Whether user error or not, more shots would be required to kill due to the misses, which (if one didn't reset the CoF) would have even lesser accuracy that the ones it precedes.

Headshots are difficult due to the smaller target and no one has 100% accuracy under real conditions, so misses are to be expected. Misses which would affect any weapon, but punish lower RoF weapons the most for all the reasons.

I would argue that the effective bloom of a weapon couldn't be anything but different for different values. If a SAW and a MSR-W are firing at a distant/nanoweave'd/heavy-shielded/some combination target, there will be a large number of shots fired to kill even with 100% accuracy. Given the differing "bloom tolerance" of either weapon, the SAW would likely start to cause CoF-based misses near the end/sooner than the MSR-W would. (Which would punish the SAW user more than the MSW-R user...)

Those 15 to the SAW's 10 would be just as inaccurate, but would still be more forgiving of misses than the SAW would of a missed 10th as opposed to a missed 15th.

The effective bloom of a weapon is only the same when in theoretical engagements, must like how a SAW, Carv, and Orion has an identical TTK on paper but almost never pair out as such in practice.

Personally I think weapons having an expanding CoF is ridiculous and really highlights some of the major flaws in PS2's game mechanics. I'd much rather have an accentuated recoil and static CoF rather than like now. One would have to burst to control a weapon, not the CoF.

Both. The fact that the two are disconnected for you is due to the confirmation bias on your part. We've looked at the stats on paper, let's see how they compare to actual gameplay;
SAW's vertical recoil: .55; first shot multi is 1.65
MSW-R's vertical recoil: .35; first shot multi is 2.5
I chose these two because first: the SAW. The SAW is a good comparison tool in general. The MSW-R is the most popular TR gun, so it's a good tool to use for comparison as well; and both the SAW and MSW-R have similar (the SAW has slightly higher recoil/m) vertical recoil, without taking into account the first shot multiplier.
In a 1.2 second trial, or 1200 ms, the SAW fires 10 bullets, while the MSW-R fires 15. Using the values above, this means that the SAW should recoil upwards to a value of .9075 + .55*9 = 5.8575 units; while the MSW-R should recoil upwards .875 + .35*14 = 5.775 units.

First shot:


The start point want the horizontal bar below the square both are in. We expect .9075 units for the SAW and .875 units for the MSW-R here; the SAW ended up above the MSW-R, which makes sense. Interesting discovery here is that initial recoil multiplier seems to also apply to horizontal recoil; or rather, it splits it between the horizontal and vertical. Using an initial recoil multiplier of 1.25 rather than 2.5, we'd see .9075 (this assume 0 horizontal recoil from the SAW which is incorrect but its pretty low) vs .4375.. which isn't quite the difference we see in the gif; the SAW did not recoil over twice as high as the MSW-R, so the split between horizontal and vertical on the first shot recoil multiplier certainly isn't 50/50, but if we split the horizontal and vertical based on their relative values, we'd see that vertical is about 60% of the MSW-R's recoil; if we use a 60/40 split and say that the MSW-R's initial vertical recoil multiplier is actually 1.5, we'd see .525; still wrong, but closer. I wonder what the actual ratio is; 75% maybe? Well, either way, pixel count wise, the MSW-R recoiled 85% as high on the initial shot vs the SAW. We expected it to recoil 98% as high as the SAW; which means the horizontal is eating up some of that initial recoil multiplier somehow.

Shot 4 (SAW) vs shot 6 (MSW-R):

The MSW-R is about 1 pixel below the SAW at this point

Shot 10 (SAW) vs shot 15 (MSW-R):

We expected the SAW to be at 5.5 (ignoring initial shot recoil for now since it's weird) vs the MSW-R at 5.25 (again, without taking into account the MSW-R's initial shot recoil multiplier). We see here that the MSW-R is indeed just a bit below the SAW.

So toss out weird ideas and look at, yes, both the stats and how they actually feel.

You ignore that I said superior when standing still and equal when moving, saying that TR and VS are able to just keep firing? That isn't what this shows, at all. When standing still the NC will be superior, when moving they aren't inferior; under the same circumstances, they are the same, at worst.
When you are not in danger of being shot. I stand still very often; for example, when firing at long range. I often beat bolt ****ters with the SAW; and if someone is rendered; as in, I can see them? I can hit them. You can't get that same accuracy out of TR guns.

You are 100% right that my comparison is quite limited. However, this seems to be the trend: A claim is made in the heat of the moment by an upset player, who came to some conclusion out of nowhere, and then it's shown to be false after further examination. I won't play that game for each individual part of the game.

It certainly doesn't look very convincing to outsiders who may read your posts, unless they seek to be validated in their own fast and loose conclusions about these same topics, to simply say things while ignoring what actually happens. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug; and please be advised, I didn't know any of the stuff I was saying were true until I tested them myself. Just playing the game normally won't give you the information you're looking for; you need to step back and really take a look objectively, as a player of the game, not of a faction.

I will continue to stand by my earlier conclusion that, upon any further investigation beyond initial feelings, NC will come out as being completely competitive in all fields statistically (of equipment); and that those statistics (of equipment) are accurately represented in game; probably to the tune of a SAW's standing still accuracy.

You may know how to do basic exponential functions but you aren't going to get the right values if you don't use the right x. By your argument, the Vanguard is incredibly, and I mean incredibly, more powerful than the Prowler; after all, in 4 shots, the Vanguard will do 2075 *4 damage while the Prowler would do 1250 * 4. Is that a fair comparison? It would be indeed incorrect to say that the Vanguard has higher DPS; the value which actually matters when you're talking the implications of both tank's stats.

You continue to ignore all of the analysis I had done previously regarding higher vs lower RoF weapons.

This part really grinds my gears:

Shooting more bullets means you miss more bullets. Shooting less bullets means you miss less bullets. Shooting more bullets means you hit more bullets. Shooting more bullets means you hit more bullets.

All that matters is the average time to reach a kill threshold, but you don't seem to understand this concept one bit. Theoretical TTK will increase the same if both users miss the same percentage of bullets.

Except for HA Heavy guns? Iirc, you completely sidestepped the issue saying "MCG and Lasher aren't incredible either." and decided to go on about the 31+meter range limitations of MCG, which minimizes the imbalance problem for all HGs in general for the sake of making your point.

Implying that I don't. That's just racist.

You ever get the feeling when a person talks about others, they're actually talking about themselves?

Don't expect anyone to sit there and give you special recognition with this flameworthy excerpt. And don't expect anyone buy into "Your headshots also mean more." argument, as people have consistently refuted it.

On a more serious note. The stats of these guns appear to be equal and the info is good to know. But remember that while statistics matter, so does applying them to real life as the expected outcome doesn't always arise; weird things start to happen, and imbalances appear.

Saying that I have only basic understand is quite a complement. But no, comparing a Vanguard and a Prowler based on a formula for determining bloom per shot in a percentage doesn't even fit the mold, and even so it's apples to oranges.

The formula works for LMGs vs. LMGs, carbines vs. carbine, LMGs vs. carbines, et cetera. It would not work with RL vs. RL or anything like that.

You're post above, #95? I responded to every point you raised.

I was going to reply to this statement, but I see that you've beat me to the punchline here. Shooting more bullets gives a greater chance of hitting. One of the weapon type fires lots of bullets, and the other one doesn't.

I don't believe that we have been discussing theoretical weapon TTKs, just theoretical weapon accuracy. But if you want it to be about TTK, high damage/low RoF weapons are about a small amount of good shots, low damage/high RoF weapons are about all the shots! Therefore, if the weapon that relies on fewer but better shots was to miss some of those shots for whatever reason, the TTK would be negatively impacted to a greater extent than the higher RoF weapon.

You know this, I know this, everyone knows this. But when one combines a demand for high accuracy with an exponentially-increasing chance to miss each consecutive shot fired regardless of player aim, the results are exaggerated to point where there is a noticeable impact between the two weapons.

Does that satisfy your argument?