HC1-Couldn't be a Pulsar C

The obvious solution is extended mags for Carbines and ARs.

Each faction gets some guns with the "TR treatment" via an extended mag, which of course removes the option of forward grip or laser. A trade of accuracy for more bullets.

We can then have TR weapons rebalanced, and their faction trait will be less dramatic like VS and NC's.

We can also then share NC's 167dmg/600RoF tier.

Yeah, it's always reckless to say things like "nobody ever asked for [this terrible idea]" because inevitably there's some bad player somewhere who suggested it.

Meanwhile damage/magazine is a key stat in the hands of a skilled player. It basically empowers you to reload whenever you know it's the right time, rather than be forced to reload frequently (often when it's suicidal.)

Personally I think the next new weapon pass that scatter-shots weapon types (like the last one) should examine some of the huge holes, like VS carbines being universally low damage/mag (apart from the Pulsar C, which is merely average.)

Agree with most of what you've said.

I don't think they need to change the standard damage/mag. They just need to ensure each faction at least has one gun that fills that niche. If VS had just one high-dmg/mag carbine, I'd be a lot happier about their carb lineup.

Yes SABR is better than Corvus but Corvus is still a great gun at ranges. I got the Corvus for free and i got around 300 kills with it so i know it a bit.

The problem is there are guns that are great at range without sucking so bad at closer ranges. Most guns that are really low RoF for their bullet damage just suck because you have access to guns with almost as good performance at long range with much better closer range viability which just makes for better QoL in a game where there's lots of closer range combat and you can't always pick your engagement distance. 577 RoF is probably the lowest any 167 dmg tier gun should go, and 698 the lowest any 143 dmg tier should go.

Battle rfiles are good at range too. Do they suck? Yes.

Corvus do not suck. It is not the best but defiantly do not suck. But also is it not okay if Corvus is the worst ranged AR since TR have the worst ranged Carbine?

I mean is it not fair that Corvus is worse than SABR since Pulsar is much better than Cougar?

Neither faction should have the worst AR or Carbine, it should be balanced enough that there aren't clear losers.

Corvus is a clear loser. Cougar isn't as much of a clear loser but it and the T5 AMC still leave a lot to be desired for TR. They have nothing between really low damage output weapons, and really jittery CQC-ish weapons. TRAC-5, Jaguar, Lynx are all too similar in role.

OTOH VS is in the same spot with ARs. There's the Terminus, some not-as-good-as-the-Terminus guns, and some really really bad long range ARs. And the Equinox/CME are too similar and just complete junk.

And TR should have one CQC carbine with 845 RoF, which doesn't get more bullets per mag for weaker TTK. And...one ranged carbine that doesn't get worse horizontal recoil or velocity or recoil angle for more bullets per mag.

This isn't about mixing other factions' traits. TR should still focus more on high-RoF low-caliber weapons (balanced weapons which achieve identical performance with more total bullets) it's just they don't need the monopoly on high-dmg/mag carbines is all. This does result in TR weapons consistently having more bullets/magazine, but they don't necessarily need better damage/magazine.

And sure, if this causes TR carbines to underperform then reducing their recoil by very slight amounts should be enough to balance things out.

You can't achieve identical performance with more total bullets unless you do something weird like having it fire 2x 85 dmg bullets, which'd just be a cosmetic difference. The higher bullet damage would always be better for range because:

- Headshot multiplier
- Short bursts deal more DMG
- Easier to control recoil(you have more time to adjust between each shot than with higher RoF low dmg bullets)

It's just not possible.

I don't really understand how players can think so rigidly that they believe it isn't possible.

Take the AMC vs. Cougar. Remove the AMC's recoil; halve its CoF bloom per shot. The AMC is now way overpowered compared with the Cougar.

Obviously a balanced middle ground exists.

Eh..not sure you can ever quite get them identical performance wise - control will always favor a slower firing heavier damage weapon. At a higher RoF but lower damage the user has to control the weapon in a different way that's generally inferior for longer ranges. The space between each bullet gives you time to keep the gun on target without losing DPS, while a higher RoF lower dmg weapon you have to more frequently/constantly make smaller adjustments.

But I think they could do a lot better than they have.

Give T5 AMC 675 RoF, remove the recoil angle: now it's a decent competitor to the Pulsar C and Merc, less similar to the Cougar, and I'm a happier TR.

Merc: 1670
Pulsar C: 1605
T5 AMC: 1608

Pulsar C still has best accuracy easily, but T5 AMC now keeps up in TTK. T5 AMC might need a velocity nerf/tweak to bring it down a little but not a huge one. And the T5 AMC retains its TR flavor which the devs seem pretty attached to for TR.

With asymmetry things will never be perfectly balanced of course, but to imply you could never have a low-caliber weapon that was balanced with a high-caliber one is excessively unimaginative. It's super easy to imagine a vastly overpowered low-caliber weapon, and it's super easy to make the logical leap to realize that a balanced middle ground exists.