Faction Imbalance

Seriously? THAT'S what you're going with?!

You know what... I'm done. Clearly you're just as bad as No0T and there's just no talking to you.

Double standards much?

At this point, I think it's more beneficial to reply with the kind of comments you genuinely deserve.

Uh, no.

Lol, no. Your 1 kdr disagrees with you.

… . .

‘I’m right because stat averages say so’. Sounds like an appeal to authority to me.

Never asked you for a textwall about why you're bad with these guns.

Implying that overall average player accuracy and HSR determines skill
Implying that I made this assertion

A fine day for cherry picking
And I think you have an unhealthy obsession with bloom.

“Guns have range.” cool story, bro.

Much accuracy, so recoil, such bias directions

OK

Just so you know, what you're doing isn't at all convincing to others. Isn't the point of this discussion to influence the game to be changed in the way you'd like? If you know that, then why make posts which are not convincing? If you don't know that, then why are you posting?

The only explanation is that you don't actually care about the balance in this game and just want to vent. Well, we're not going to get anywhere since I genuinely want the factions to be balanced, and, well, you don't.

The heck?

The entire discussion we were having was between the TRAC-5 and the Merc. The argument hinged on the guns not changing significantly.

They haven't changed significantly.

You posted patch notes as if they were changed in those patch notes.

Pointing out that they weren't changed.. is apparently a bad thing? What? Man, speaking of looking extremely unconvincing...

See, I enjoy intelligent debates, but I see the exchanges anyone has had with you has been far from that. Being compared to No0t should have tipped you off. Learn to take the hint.

It's interesting that this thread has 9 pages and has basically devolved into "the merc is worst" so NC can not win...

It's kind of crazy.

Being compared to noot because "I disagree so you're noot" and "your posts are unreadable and unintelligible" are not the same thing.

You're so blinded by your ego and bias that you can't even discuss something.

I think he meant to say in general. It may seem like they're imbalanced but they're designed to be that way since different factions specializes on certain traits. I do believe though, that TR is getting the best of everything. Probably the easiest one to play with if you're new to the game. "Didn't stick with NC, because I didn't like being a turtle with a shotgun"

Sadly it looks that way because one person refuses to understand how physics applies to the world.

u wot

Tell me what travels further, a vehicle traveling north 30 miles 3 times or a vehicle traveling north 45 miles 2 times?

Obviously, the speed of ignorance. The speed of ignorance makes c look like a stationary object!

Continuing to be very convincing to all the readers of this thread, I see!

Well.
What was the core of this thread exactly?
Most of the pages seem to be all about Carbines, or discussions about the discussion about the debate on said carbines?

Like, can we agree to disagree about the carbine data, so that doesn't literally add more pages of a seemingly-endless back & forth argument?

It was about high rate of fire low damage vs low rate of fire high damage in general, only the last few posts were about the TRAC-5 vs the Merc.

Think you can argue about weapons till the cows come home but isn't it about personal preference? , What the graphs and charts will never show you is that 50% or over of kills with any weapon are accomplished by getting the drop on someone how can you calculate that ?
Personally I think NC small arms have a clear advantage in CQC especially when you take into account getting the drop on someone scenario the extra damage and controllability + the great burst fire makes them deadly and easier to use.

In closing no amount of pie charts will account for luck , surprise and situational awareness just because a chart says this gun is better than that gun doesn't make it so when you calculate the above factors into the equation.

The assumption is that both factions will be getting the drop on someone else the same amount of times, on average.

Also I'm finally available to play again and I went straight to my NC character. Something I didn't realize: 167 and 200 damage tier weapons (especially 200) are the ultimate hallway clearing and holding tools. If you know the distance your enemy will be at, as well as the height of their head, you can pre-aim and achieve insanely low TTKs. Uniquely, against a Adrenoweave Heavy, the GODSAW takes just 4 headshots, or 3 HS and 2 body shots, or 2 HS and 4 body shots. That's 360-600 ms from the first shot to kill, compared to an MSW-R which needs 400 - 640 ms (6 HS ~ 3 HS 6 body).

I've had several 10+ kills per death sessions yesterday, after a week of not playing. It has been months since I played NC, and I've improved a lot since then, on TR. My IvI for the GODSAW is 700, while my highest IVI for TR is 620 with the MSW-R. IVI is your ability to beat other players in 1v1 scenarios.

I want to propose a theory about why NC loses so many alerts. I will show this through simple math and a thought experiment.

Imagine squads of newbie NC and TR fighting at a base in Koltyr. There are 10 players on each squad, all of which have no defense loadouts and using default carbines with no attachments. We assume none of these players reload and all are at the same skill level and have 1000 hp.

Specs:
NC AF-19 Mercenary: 30 Mag, 167 bullet damage
TR TRAC-5: 40 mag, 143 bullet damage
Player hp: 1000

The damage potential of one magazine for NC's AF-19 Mercenary is 5,010 damage. For TR's TRAC-5 it is 5,720 damage.
If we multiply those numbers to account for ten people, the maximum damage potential of the NC squad is 50,100, and the TR is 57,200. That's a difference of 7,100 damage. What this means is TR needs only 9 players (or 51,480 damage) to achieve the same amount of damage potential that 10 NC deals.

If that doesn't seem like much, imagine a wide scale battle of 100 players on each faction fighting at a base with the same skill, loadout and weapon parameters. NC's maximum damage potential is 501,000; TR is 572,000. That's a difference of 71k damage. In order to achieve the same amount of damage potential as NC, TR only needs 89 players (or 509,080 damage) to NC's 100. And so on:

50 NC maximum damage potential is 250,500
50 TR maximum damage potential is 286,000.
A 35,500 damage difference
44 TR meet the maximum damage potential at 251,680
A 6 player difference

A 1v1 or small battle doesn't seem like much because NC has that bullet damage advantage, but it doesn't appear balanced on the bigger scale of things as shown; 71k damage is a big difference. Imo, empire specific weapons must be carefully balanced for large and small fights, and it doesn't appear to be the case for NC in this aspect.

I think this might help explain why people have misconceptions about NC: they need to 'get good', they're disorganized, dumb, or need to spend their certs more wisely, or they are just 'doing it wrong', etc. Sure you can argue that this is the case in all three factions, but I think said misconceptions become ingrained and perpetuated when players leave NC because of reasons, known or unknown, like the one I've shown. Misconceptions and crappy attitudes don't help when stats are stacked against NC on wide scale battles, because those battles may determine the chances of winning or losing bases, and ultimately alerts.

I think this also helps explain when on NC it feels like you're fighting a losing battle even if there are an equal amount or greater amount of players on your team, or it seems like NC weapons require you to make more headshots and be more accurate, or it feels like you're being punished for missing shots. Obviously this thought experiment doesn't account for a million other variables in the game, but I think it sheds some light on certain aspects for scale battles. Hope this contributes something to the imbalance conversation and puts the thread back on track.

Sorry m8 not being rude but that's just wrong , Most kills happen because you get the drop on someone or your taken by surprise and for the most part the surpriser will win regardless of what gun he is carrying to a certain extent.

If you have 2 sides facing off against each other like NC and TR it depends on the range in CQC I would say NC for Mid range id go for TR.

In retrospect playing slower weapons makes you a better shot I love the NS15 which has a rof of 625 but hell its so relaxing to play and I can actually headshot with it more than some of the faster rof weapons.....

How is the calculated maximum damage potential wrong? And how does that refute or explain why NC has a disparity in alert wins compared to other factions on a cross platform basis? If you're making the assertion that people just happen to get the jump on NC most of the time, that seems less plausible in comparison to the thought experiment.

Well from experience.
Whenever NC on connery have equal pop to the opponent.
The battle either stalemates for a short period, or NC just loses hard.
Like I can literally estimate with a grand 75% batting average that a battle will snowball into a loss, at 50-50 NC vs TR or VS.
Hell, VS often manages disturbing results with less people.

If NC gets the drop on you, you shell some bullets into them if they can't score the kill shots fast enough - which is hard to achieve.
Hell, you could even win that fight.

TR gets the drop on you, they shell out enough bullets to usually kill well before an NC gun fires off even half the rounds.

VS, same story nearly, but more head shots or you get lucky, and the VS dies first.

But that's likely just Connery.
And considering the Numbers Dire gave, I'd believe it.

For every NC, you gain a slow-firing weapon.
For every TR, you gain another machine-gun.
For every VS, you gain a slower machine-gun.

For NC, that's maybe more bullets for longer periods.
For TR, that's more bullets flying across the same area at ever increasing rates with dwindling down times.
For VS, it's a mix of the two, but often more accurate burst fire.

What Direlithe is saying is entirely valid. Guns have different magazine damage potentials. But how many players are actually playing LA as opposed to HA, Medic etc? If you're comparing only base LA, then yes, NC loses out on damage/mag. But, if you compare the HA for example, the SAW is at 16700 per mag vs 14300 for the CARV. This is a 16.8% difference - slightly more than the 14.2% difference in damage/mag of the 2 basic LAs.

So, for the argument to work (we know NC loses more alerts, I just mean that this may not be the solution as to why), we'd want to look at how many of each gun is used, and see which have higher damage/mag counts. Well, we could even skip that.. because the stats such as K/D, kph etc all inadvertently take into account the fact that each gun has it's own unique magazine size and damage/mag.

So, with our discussion previously with the Merc vs TRAC-5, I hadn't noticed the damage/mag difference. The fact that the Merc achieves higher kph, K/D, accuracy, HSR than the TRAC-5, with lower damage/mag, indicates that the Merc is actually even more superior than I originally thought over the TRAC-5; because DESPITE having lower damage/mag, it still does better.