Higby Asks: if there is a hole in a weapon lineup, better to modify an existing weapon, changing it

With the recent buff to semi-autos, each class of small-arms feels like it has a place in combat. Each has its pros and cons.

I don't feel there are any gaps. I use every gun available to the NC, and not one of them is without merit. I've found the sweet spot for each. Yes, there's some overlap. Some guns fill the same role. Guns like the Gr-22 and Carnage even perform almost identically (yet have a few different attachment options).

I say it's time for more experimentation; more niche weapons. Give us double-barrel shotguns, pistols with scopes (or scopes for pistols), semi-auto ARs and Carbines, more ES SMGs... and melee weapons.

Sunderer guns? Sure. Let's say three - the Basilisk (with a tightened cone of fire for the first few shots in a burst so it's less horrible to use against infantry), the Ranger (improved) and the Bulldog. Delete Kobalt, Walker, Fury. In its current state, it would be safe to delete the Ranger too - too much overlap with the Basilisk. So two Sunderer guns.

Having a bazillion different weapons that are nearly identical adds complexity to the game (which is bad) without adding much depth. Weapons should only be added when they are clearly differentiated from the others and fun to use and to fight against. Someone mentioned the Carnage and GR-22. Delete one, keep other. Fold any necessary attachment options into the remaining gun.

Holes? Its the opposite. What the heck is the practical difference between the two fast firing ARs of both NC and TR?. We dont need 6 guns of 4 categories for each empire. Three woukd bw enouhg.

NC:
Merc
AC-X11
Gauss compact S
-
NC1
DMR
Carnage
-
NC6
Anchor
EM6

I'd say yes, modifying existing assets should be the priority. We already have way too much guns in competition for some niches, I think they could stand to be more different from each other.

There are more than enough weapons with a lot of overlap, that at least one per catagory could be changed with no role lost. Like looking at TR's close range carbine selection, the Jag and Lynx are very similar weapons, changing ether one would still leave the TR with a good close range carbine. And the Trac5 does fine in cqc as well.

Vehicle weapons however, I'd rather see new weapons added, as I don't think there's as much overlap there. But concerning infantry weapons, we could absolutley afford to modify the existing ones and change some roles around. The less overlap between infantry weapons, the better IMO.

I would like to see some minor tweaks to weapons in stats. Maybe some new ones but after fixing the current ones.

I would like to see cosmetic changes for existing weapons too. I play NC and they supposedly use weapons from different companies like Genuine Dynamics(GD-7F, Razor GD-23,etc) yet too many weapons look exactly the same except for one part of the gun. 90% of the guns have reused meshes except for the occasional stock. For example the Warden BR is basically a carbine with a sniper rifle-long barrel and a stock. The other factions need to have more cosmetic variation too. Also many people probably don't notice or don't care but there are so many weapons that have their grip attachment just "glued" to the gun without using the rail. It just annoys me lol.

+ I would like to see more sights/scopes like a lit up holographic 4X scope

modify them. TR doesn't need 6 copies of 143 dmg 700-750 rof carbines

The Anchor serves to be an improved hipfire 600RpM weapon, more geared toward CQC with Adv laser and stuff

EM6 is the general purpose, high mag cap weapon. Its best used in Short-mid range wiht some ability in CQC.



if there is any weapon that could use comparing to the Anchor it'd be the EM1. Those are the CQC oriented weapons...and Anchor pretty much im sure beats it.

EM1 could adopt the Anchor's damage while nerfing damage degradation a bit, lower mag cap to 75 and giving the thing a bit more AF4 characterisitcs.




On the TR side of the house we have the T32 and T16 fulfilling the same role but the T16 is better at it. T32 could use a boot or rework of sorts.

Here id take the x2 optic from T32 and give it to T16.

id love a graphics overhaul of the NC Weaponry.


I still hold out hope that one day my EM6 will look more like an M60VN or M60E4.

Better to change pre-existing weapons to fill the gaps, provided you are prepared to refund players who no longer want the new version of those weapons.

Not really. While the EM1 and the Anchor compete for a similar intended role, they do so in different ways. (the EM1 needs a buff, imo, but that's besides the point) But when comparing the Anchor to the EM6? There are only a few minor differences in stats and a few advanced attachments each has over the other. But down to stats.

Both shoot at 600 RPM
Both have the same damage tier and dropoff
Anchor, ironically, has 30 more velocity (not a huge difference, but the weirdest thing is that it's on the supposedly CQC 167 LMG. Accounting for the HV ammo?)
Anchor has superior hip accuracy
Both have nearly identical aim accuracy (except anchor is slightly better in one area)

Aside from hip fire accuracy, the ONLY thing that separates these two weapons is magazine size/reload time and the compensator(EM6) and the advanced laser sight(Anchor) If you gave the Anchor the compensator and gave it the same magazine size as the EM6, it'd be doing the EM6's job better.

I'm not against some overlap in roles. I'm just against weapons that are nearly identical.

Modify the existing weapons. And since you're at it, change the skin/model!

In my own opinion it's better to modify an already existing failure and thus changing it to something valid.

TR and VS has the 750 ROF 143 dpb LMGs, NC has the 500 ROF 200 DPM LMG.
Not as Eskimo said there's an overlap in terms of arsenal, such as empire specific weaponry, however in terms of actual originality of ES weaponry the TR pulls the short end of the stick.

Jackhammer, Gauss Saw, Railjack. Pretty much all original across the board, one can argue that the Railjack sucks due to i's trigger delay making it a dedicated Marksman rifle over range. (TL;DR basicly you don't have to compensate much for gravity over range for the cost of the delayed firing mechanism, so you still have to aim ahead, but you can still practically aim for the head even across +150 meters)

Disregarding the "Heavy Weaponry" such as the Jackhammer, the Minigun and Lasher, NC stands with the most ES stuff.
Fire rate Faction doesn't have the fastest firing

One can argue that VS is the precision faction, and I personally agree they have this, with the following examples. Pulsar C (Advanced Foregrip doing work) Ursa (Least horizontal recoil of all LMGs) SVA-88 (For it's firerate, it's attachment makes it very controllable) Corvus (Need I say more than a very controllable gun even going full auto?) and the fact their Scout rifle and battle rifle equivalents don't have bullet drop like all VS arsenal firearms.

And then we have the NC hitting hard, often with a high vertical recoil, which is a thing you can compensate for in video games with enough experience with the weapon, the least horizontal recoil on average (Even on the GD-10 Blitz, Major design flaw!), and of course

Now I'm not saying TR UP, but I'm saying that there have been design flaws in terms of definition of each factions pros and cons where they have been shifted around. I also acknowledge to make things "fair" other factions get access to weapons of the same or similar strengths.

TL;DR.
Yes, The devs shouldn't be afraid to modify already existing weaponry to perfect it's intended role, like making the EM1 750 ROF, and or making the T5 AMC 167 DPB 577 ROF.

Adding new is the way to go rather than radical role change for an existing one. Otherwise it's time for another round of "THAT'S NOT WUT I PAID FOR QQ CERT REFUND OMG!!!!"

Besides magazine size, hipfire cone and attachments there's actually a few more differences between the two.

Anchor:
600 m/s velocity
630 chamber time
<-18 22-> recoil pattern
.40-.40 intensity
2x first shot multiplier
And of course smaller COF

EM6:
570 m/s velocity
845 chamber time
<-0 0-> recoil pattern
0.45-0.45 intensity
1.8x first shot multiplier
And of course greater mag size

Now what does this tell us? EM6 actually has a "better" Sustained ADS fire backed up by it's magazine, handles mowing down heaps of enemies easier

Where the LA1 Anchor on the other hand has a different recoil pattern that can be argued to be more predictable with a smaller intensity, has the better hipfiring option, especially with the ADV Laser sight it has access to, it's much better in 1v1 situations, on paper.
But if you were to hipfire an ADSing EM6, it's very likely the EM6 would win.

I just want them to diversify the weapons a bit more, is it me or does it feel like the TR got shafted when it came to LMGs?

Except for very much needed weapon model variety on all empires the most glaring overlapping I noticed is on TR

T-16 and T-32 are too similar, T-16 I can see it being a EM1-ish weapon where you put sustained accurate low dps down range but the T-32 makes no sense.

And TR carbines Trac-5, LC2 Lynx and LC3 Jaguar are too similar in usage.

regardless, they can both perform nearly the same with ADS with the anchor having a better hip-fire come of fire.

Yep, I was just attempting to specify the more "hidden" differences.

It's no secret the Rhino and Bull are pretty stale.

The same could be said about the VX6-7 and Serpent, very similar as well. The general difference in both cases are less recoil less fire rate, more recoil more fire rate.
Even though the Lynx is the slowest firing "CQC" carbine out there.