They need to take out the ADS movement speed. Any LMG shouldnt be able to manouver like an SMG hipfire weapon.
The Flare is amazing with the right attachments of SPA, Compensator, and Ex-Mags. Find a group, toss a conc grenade into them, kill them all without reloading.
I'll swear by my Orion til the servers enter sunset, or they nerf the CoF AND the .75x movement. The thing SOE doesn't seem to realize is that the "short-to-medium" weapons can still perform admirably out to long range - except the extreme cases like SMGs and shotguns where their CoF make accurate shots over longer distances too unlikely - but the long range weapons have a hard time adjusting to short range combat. Though what boggles my mind is what justice is there in giving the Orion a .75x speed, but the Anchor is shafted to having lower DPS AND moving at a mere .5x? I get there's more total damage in an anchor magazine, but I hardly think anyone would dare justify that makes it balanced with the MSW-R's hip-CoF (which it matches, but...) or the Orion's .75x ADS.
The Orion isn't in the same class as either of those weapons - the Polaris is (and it loses out, badly). The Orion is in a class of its own, unique to VS. You can put a laser sight on the Orion, but the hipfire will never be as good as an Anchor/MSW-R with the advanced laser and at longer ranges the jitter will make it a bugger to aim. In CQC situations besides point-blank, it's ADS or nothing (compared to an Anchor, which can hipfire at longer ranges giving the user even more mobility than a 0.75 ADS LMG). Additionally the Anchor with the laser will be easier to aim at range than the Orion with the laser, because the Orion's recoil pattern is extremely hard to compensate for at range without the forward grip.
All true, except it's false when you consider that no soldier worth his salt holds still, even when ADS, and especially with the Orion. Suddenly, moving at .75x speed to the left or the right, that Orion has directional bias to its recoil in the direction the soldier is moving, even if it is purely artificial. Suddenly then, it is MUCH more accurate in my hands down range. Like ridiculously so. Same with the TAR - I can't hit $#!% standing still, but if I'm strafing... The only exceptions to this rule are the Armistice, Hailstorm, and Carnage. Their jitter is so extreme they need the fore grips. And I would never underestimate the Orion's hip fire potential. I've dropped my fair share of guys and they weren't within 5m, more like 10-15m. Granted, the MSW-R and Anchor have better hip fire with the advanced laser, but the fact still remains - the Anchor is the weakest of the bunch, as it suffers from the lower RPM, lower DPS, ADS movement CoF penalty of the 167 brand of weapons, and the same ADS movement as the MSW-R. Far as I'm concerned, the MSW-R is a straight upgrade in every way to the Anchor, and the Orion beats it out anyway. A niche of 5m superiority over the Orion due to the ALS doesn't suddenly make it viable over the Orion.
This is true for any weapon with horizontal recoil, but the Orion recoils left, then right, then left, then right...it violently zig-zags upwards. It's fine for ADS at close-to-mid-range (hell, I ran with ironsights/no barrel/no rail for my first 500 or so kills, it was awesome) but if you need to hit at longer ranges, you aren't really going to hit reliably with the both the jitter and the moving CoF. As always, it's what works for different people. Strafing does improve player accuracy substantially at close-quarters (depending on recoil characteristics), but reduces weapon accuracy badly at longer ranges.
Actually not true. Terran Republic is based in mobility. So the .75 ads speed should belong to the Terran Republic. The Vanu focus on accuracy.
Of course, I don't care about the latter, because most killing is done within 60m, 80m tops. Last mention of expected weapons range came in beta if I recall, and they upped it from 60m to a general balance of around 80m due to data suggesting players were trying to engage other players out to that distance as the maximum average. Sure, there are accurate LMGs for long range work, but if I MUST sit still to score enough hits to kill someone before they can get to cover, I'll grab a RAMS .50. It comes with the added benefit of not exposing me to sniper fire for an extended period of time. And for what its worth, the only time I've been killed by an automatic at "long range" (over 60m) is when I'm in the open and there's like 4+ guys shooting at me.
NC focus on guerilla warfare and control - hit hard, don't let the enemy respond in kind. Tank shield means a Vanguard can get out of a tight spot relatively unscathed. The MAX shield means it can push in against an enemy until that enemy either retreats or is in range for the scattercannon. The reaver rockets hit the hardest, and the reaver can afterburn the fastest, though it's a brick otherwise. A proper NC weapon might be something that can litter an area with deadly needles that resonate, then explode (either after X amount of time or on demand,) the damage escalating based on the number of nearby needles. This means they can plink away at something, then wait for the fireworks, or set up an area of denial. Basically, the NC are more about hunkering down or premeditating their attacks. Players aren't so good a the latter. TR focus on volume, speed is something of a secondary as it falls in the second doctrine of "blitz" and "breach and clear" tactics that a defense force would use against terrorists. Speed should and is mostly designated to vehicles, not infantry. TR rifles have more ammo to support the volume trait. The fire rate further supports that trait. Two tank cannons? Volume. A proper AI tank weapon for the TR isn't a grenade launcher or HE shells, it's a hellfire rocket launcher that can just pepper an area, though it will have to focus an area to do any real damage. Unfortunately, this makes it akin to the PPA only with an arc, and the game doesn't need the PPA in it's current form, much less another PPA. Basically, the TR ARE the commies/Imperium Guard of PS2 - keep throwing men and ammo at the problem and don't stop. VS focus on efficiency and band-aiding little problems. Their lasher is the gun that will hit you even if you miss. Their guns have no bullet drop (an undervalued trait, silencers are boss on Vanu weaponry.) The lancer is a semi-automatic anti-tank rifle, it only leaves you vulnerable for as long as you want to shoot something. Their tank keeps its forward armor facing the enemy while allowing it to still strafe (slower, yes, but it's STILL greatly beneficial against slower incoming ordinance, like dumb fire rockets, and generally bad tank shots.) In the future, the VS might be able to add "can float over water" to it's resume of awesomeness. The Scythe's rocket pods make two shots count in the same instance of time, as opposed to just one. Basically, their philosophy is to fix all the irritating little inconveniences the other two empires have to suffer through. Coincidentally, this is what technology advancement is about if it's not some huge technological breakthrough, like rebirthing technology.
The MSW-R is a downgrade to the Anchor, not an upgrade. Longer TTK unless you're a bad player who only fires at center of mass, weaker performance at range, harder and less predictable kick, less damage per magazine, and no improvements in any of the accuracy statistics. If it weren't for the 0.75 ADS speed the Orion would be an even bigger downgrade. No soft point, worse hipfire, jittery recoil that forces you to use shorter bursts than with the other two. Of the three the Orion's definitely the strongest all around, but it's closer than you think and the Anchor is a lot better than you're giving it credit for. Definitely stronger than the MSW-R and in many situations better than the Orion.
In no way will I ever agree with you until A: the anchor is the most common NC LMG or more realistically second to the SAW and B: I'm wrecking harder with an Anchor than I am with an Orion or an MSW-R, both of which I see far more often than the Anchor. For the Orion, that's a given. For the MSW-R though? No one complains about being on the receiving end of the Anchor. No one. It's hardly the best.
First off, the Anchor has a 1k cert price tag so not many people will get it (much like why you're not killed often with the Ursa or Bull) which adds to why it's not popular. Secondly, out of every NC LMG it has the highest average KDR among it's users, both from those who have auraxed it and those who haven't yet. Furthermore, the anchor has a higher average KDR than the Orion by non auraxed users by .21 while it has a lower average KDR than the Orion by auraxed users by only .1... so yes they are comparable in effectiveness. Oh, and the Anchor has people using it more than 37% of the time that people have used the Ursa, and more than 60% of the time for the Bull.
Then you have a very poor way of forming opinions about the game. Your average player can barely pull a 1 K/D with a heavy, why should I care what guns they pull or which ones they hate dying to? I care a lot more about the fact that the Anchor is my best bet as either NC or TR for going up against an Orion HA than I do about some distorted KPU graph.
False: Orion basic hipfire (2.75/3.5) is like an MSW-R or anchor with simple laser sight (base hip firing COFs are 3/3.75). MSW-R/Anchor with ALS have the same COF than Orion with LS. Compared to the MSW-R, Orion trades SPA and low vertical recoil for 0.75ADS move mult and stock laser sight.
Huh, I need to test this. I'm now baffled though as to why the best naturally hipfiring LMG in the game does not have access to ALS. I feel like I need to check the GD-22S' accuracy now as well In that case the Orion is a lot more viable than I previously thought in hipfire CQC, and it does sit in the same category as the Anchor and MSW-R.
