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

Extremely well put.

Especialy the part about going in on a case by case basis: many VS and TR weapons do work well.

I know people are worried about all factions ending up the same because of "balance", but every faction should have access to at least one weapon for any given scenario. (Like the NC right now: one for long range, one for short, and a jack of all trades).

Once you've achieved balance with the "Core" weapon types, you can start tacking on faction specifics, like the DMR, the TRV or the CME.



Also... I like the starter weapons, but does anyone else agree with me that they need to be rebalanced to fill the "Jack of all trades, master of none" role?

Not only does a new player need that gun to be kind of okay in any role they need it to be, but the whole "pay for a side grade" thing breaks down when the default weapon excels in specific scenarios.

TR-wise: Add new weapon(s).
Make all weapons above 20001000 ROF. Reduce damage per bullet accordingly.
Just make it happen, Higgles. Let all the other empires outperform us by a margin, I don't care.
I just want to shoot fast.

I honestly do not think there can be enough requisite variety to make all weapons in a class useful. When we're talking about having 4 (?) SMGs, 5 (?) LMGs etc it seems unlikely that there can be a gap in a weapons lineup that requires a 6th or 7th LMG, rather than differentiating a previously redundant weapon...

Lynx and Jag come to mind here, along with the abomination of that 'built-in silencer' SMG etc... Fair enough, throw the redundant (or 'novelty') weapons in when there are no complaints about the existing weapons (the SMG example might well be quite a good one here), but not when a weapon class isn't well-rounded already.

That said, I still don't find there to be huge issues with many weapon classes that go beyond personal preference to actually affecting faction performance, so unless this can be very solidly tied into our population imbalance issues, I'm not sure how much of a priority I'd give to something that could easily amount to homogenising the factions.

New all the way.

1) New stuff is always good.

2) More to work for more to pay for, one is good for player retention the other good for revenue

3) You will not upset anyone who likes a weapon just the way it is or throw off those who have spent time learning that particular weapon

4) Gives the opportunity to do something completely new, whether from an audio, visual, or performance standpoint instead of just re-skinning and tweaking a few values

5) See point 3

My big fear is that they would take a weapon or weapon(s) that I truly love and change them in ways that I truly hate. At least if it is new then this is not a possibility- I may not like the new weapon but at least I still have my favorites.

There are some weapons, however, that could use some attachment additions- for instance, the T1B Cycler really needs a compensator option because otherwise HVA is just not a real option (and this is coming from someone who has spent most time with NC and with HVA on everything that will take it).

My problem with adding weapons is it's going to look like a cash grab to longer time players, gonna be the initial OP tool for the newer players to use, and when it gets nerfed it's gonna add a bunch of grief when there are no refunds.

Take a step back, look at the weapons and start changing the ones that are pretty similar to other weapons. LMGs in particular make the case nicely, but even the other classes could use some tweaks.

Infantry primaries are pretty close to balanced, but they're close to balance due to normalization not due to faction flavor. (Gauss Saw being one of the few exceptions). Take a TR guns and make it really fast albeit quite weaker. Tweak the VS to give them other subtle benefits, such as something quieter w/o the penalties of a silencer. Or cert a self-recharging battery where the player needs to decide if allowing it to recharge or manually reloading is faster.

I dunno. But with so many similarities to guns existing I'd rather lose a couple close to carbon copies and make them more faction specific before adding anything new.

I really hope they keep some faction-specific traits and don't offer everything to everyone. I like "asymmetrical balance" as Higby puts it. I don't play VS, but I don't mind that they get a suppressing weapon (Lasher) and no one else does. I don't mind that TR has a 800 rpm / 143 dmg heavy gun that no other empire has for their HA. I don't mind that NC has the only 200 dmg guns in the game, and also the guns with the lowest rate of fire. I think the differences are GOOD, not bad, and add flavor and variety to the game.

Please, SOE, don't ruin what you've built. That's one thing you've done right, please don't dilute it by offering everything to everyone. Keep some identity to the factions, beyond just camos and voice packs.

Change existing weapons, split them in distinct roles and categories, create interesting mechanics while retaining and improving on Faction flavor. The disadvantages don't have to be direct counters to the advantages, in fact they should NEVER be. Balance doesn't have to be symmetrical if there is compensation in some form or other. Better to have a weapon with multiple modes and different Cert lines to mix and match, a weapon that offers meaningful options so that 2 people might use it very differently, than having 3 weapons. This goes for Tools, Turrets, vehicles, pretty much all that we see and probably should include fixed Turrets changing depending on who's controlling the Tower. Might even incentivize Infiltrators to Hack them.

NS weapons should also NOT be the "Middle", with NS we have a chance to have a sort of shared 4th Faction equipment but I'm sure each Faction would slightly change the designs to fit their ideology and methods. If we really HAVE to have a common ground it should be all the starting gear we get across all Factions, and even those should not be made with the intention to be tossed aside once we get our hands on Faction materiel- Let those who wish to keep the non flavoured weapons enjoy a wide range of options to compensate. The more you specialize, the more your options expand(NOT the opposite) towards the direction of the weapon's forte and Faction flavour should become increasingly apparent. Not specializing though should give you a Jack Of All Trades feeling, with no Faction design influence. I know this sounds a bit like a contradiction but I can't word it differently, I'm not English.

I agree with him. Now that we've got that out of the way: why the **** do both the T16 and the T32 exist? They both do the exact same thing (although the Rhino is arguably better) with the only major differences in weapon performance being a few attachments (and the whole attachment nonsense with most guns in this game is worth a whole other rant), and weird, gimped stats on the Bull.

Same thing goes for the GD-22S/Gauss SAW S and then the EM6 and the Anchor. It's like SOE really just threw a bunch of stuff out there and hoped that people would pay money for them.

Good points, and I hope the VS and TR get sorted out with weapon variety (Hopefully they take out some of the obnoxious amount of horizontal side to side recoil on some of the TR guns too. That or give us advanced forward grips and compensators )

In terms of art. VS and TR weapons still could use a second overhaul. Even after the overhaul Half of TR LMG' still look the same except colored different or different gun stocks or Magazine shapes.NC also has like 3 identical looking LMG's too.

Generally speaking; we could use a slightly greater variety in carbines. The weapon class (espcially for VS) just feels lacking.

From a purple perspective; we lack a fast-bullet gun. This could be easily corrected by tacking on +100m/s to the NS-11C:
Which is woefully underbudget in bullet speed when compared to all other NS weapons game wide.

But I don't need to fall back into broken record mode. *cough*
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/slight-tweak-to-the-ns-11c.157845/

Arguably?


Jackhammer is, hands down, the best shotgun in the game. I would(And have) pay the full seven dollars for that beast.

It has either equal or greater stats of every other shotgun(Fastest Reload, tightest spread, Equal Magazine to the High-Cap shotguns all while keeping the fastest reload and tightest spread), the ability to swap from Semi-Auto to PA mode, and the best damn model in the game, all for a minor reduction of damage. Which hardly even matters, since you still kill with two bursts to the chest.

I have about 3000 kills combined with Shottys, and I can assure anyone, without a doubt, there is no reason an NC character should EVER use any shotgun but the Jackhammer except for Araxium Medals.

EVER.

a good idea would be to remove the non S type weapons and just make the S type weapons the starter guns. only thing is something would have to be done about the orion and the gauss saw because most people feel as if the S type is a downgrade. honestly i dont see why the guass saw can't have single fire or 2 round bursts and acess to the 6x scope.

Every weapon should fill a role. If there are 2 weapons that fill the same role, and another role is being ignored, then one of those 2 weapons should be changed.

Also, there are other ways to make money besides just selling new weapons and cosmetics. You guys denied my offer to pay for a name change, even though it's a service you offer to people already(people with offensive names). It probably would have taken 2 minutes to do.

Brb, I'll write full on/off topic long post saving a space here!

Well this is the thing, real LMG's don't kick any harder than carbines or assault rifles of the same calibre. That's just a video game invention to balance them. The real reason soldiers don't all carry LMGs in reality is because they're heavier and longer and there's no need for every man to have a 200 round magazine handy.

But this isn't reality, so I do expect LMG's to be video-game LMGs (just like I expect shotguns to be video game shotguns).

The issue is they've gone to far in an attempt to balance the HA. I always thought that the HA's personal shield was a little too much "I win" button style and in every 1v1 they'd simply win without effort. So what the devs have done is continually nerfed LMG's to balance out the class.

First it was increasing their recoil. Then it was increasing their hipfire cone of fire. But in the process of this, they've made them fail to excel at long range combat, and made them absolutely terrible at close quarters combat. Assault rifles have almost identical damage modelling (min and max damage ranges), bullet velocity, ADS cone of fire and rate of fire, but much easier to control recoil and far superior hipfire cone of fire.

I would happily trade my heavies personal shield for LMG's which don't have ridiculous handling characteristics.

Even if just the first shot recoils were reduced down to the 1.1-1.25 region, it would significantly improve LMG's.

who is this twitter dude in op's post ?
I'm pretty sure it's just an imposter anyway.
If that person had any real interest in this game he'd ask here.

****, can't edit post :/ oh well:

Well can't we do both?

Been playing on my alts since NC overpop and having BR100
At the moment we have few problems with weapon arsenals on all factions.

TR don't have that much variety in their weapon arsenal on LMGs and carbines. Also their low damage high rpm, high mag size weapons are practically non-existant, since 143 is most common damage type.
So where is 125dmg/896rpm weapon extreme for them? That wouldn't be available to other factions?
Furthermore, it seems that some weapons have not quite well revised weapon attachments. T16 not having 2x scope on TR side for example.
Playing with their assault rifles, I find them quite good and good selection from CQC, to longer ranges. Though, it would be great, that they had a medium damage accurate AR too for their own stuff. Cycler TRV and TAR seem great close quarters options and T1 Cycler is for me great allrounder.
Also, why not give higher rpm, butter smooth accurate low dps weapons for them.


VS I just got gold on my Orion and I don't see any reason to use any other gun on my heavy. If I'll go long range, I might consider NS-15M , but why would I bother with Pulsar LSW or Polaris? Ursa is too pricy to spec into and Flare has too big horizontal recoil to use at longer ranges. Personally, I'd consider buffing Flare's horizontal recoil and make Pulsar LSW a 167/600 with 45 bullet mag, better reload speed cqc Anchor variant with either ALS or SPA, to make VS arsenal more diverse. Their Carbines seem to be their most balanced variety honestly, but in AR section I can't find use for CME, it's too similar to NS-11A and seems a bit weaker and pricier investment, while not giving much back.

What baffles me about VS weaponary, is that their main theme - accuracy is more visible on NS weapons than VS ones...


NC is my main and I have lot's of complaints about them. While NC arsenal seems best varied, but at same time, it's variation is wrong. IE: why the hell we have both Carnage AR and GR-22? Both are high rpm 143 damage assault rifles, what isn't NC signature at all, sure it variety, but why NC can't have a 0.75x ADS movement speed assault rifle with NC damage model? With all this "variety" 200/500 damage Reaper DMR feels more like allrounder than DMR. So we have a 143, a 167 and 200 damage allrounders. I do feel NC medic is a bit lacking it that department. I always miss an alternative 167 damage rifle on my medic, cause NC1 Gauss rifle just doesn't work for me.

Moving on to carbines. While I have gripes that GD-7F is our only CQC carbine and is actually not NC style weapon, I can live with that, however, I don't really like that both ACX and Razor are our cheapest optional carbines to Mercenary, ACX like Reaper is close to allrounder and Razor is more or less the best longer range carbine. With that said, we do lack cheaper close quarters carbine option. And common, LA and Carbines are meant more for close quarters engagements, so why **** NC with no option for cheaper carbine option?

Next LMGs. Here is best example, when **** is out of whack: EM1, and CQC attachment LMG, with long range stats, horrible hipfire and ALS meant to be NC close quarters option... IT IS NOT! It's a great weapon, that I'd like slapping with a nonexistant 2x scope and going to town at midranges, it's quite good allrounder, along with EM6, Anchor and GD-22S . Only SAW S could be considered longer range LMG, while NC6 Gauss Saw for me is better allrounder, but people will object that it's a long range LMG. So is SAW S, even with it's few more attachments, just bit different. GD-22S doesn't have the velocity to me not allrounder, Anchor doesn't have DPS or hipfire now to be strictly CQC and is quite accurate at mid ranges. EM6 is high and mighty weapon indeed but it has same DPS as Anchor and higher theoretical TTK than Saw. If you're good enough with a Saw ADS in close quarters, it's actually better option than 167/600 weapon variants there. But you need to be good. And then there is EM1, the **** is this weapon? It's a headshot machine, that's what it is. It's so easy to do headshots, it's not even funny. It's an ADS weapon, due to terrible hipfire, low dps and good muzzle velocity, but god damn it, why the **** it has ALS now? AFG and 2x scope with access to HVA and Comp would make it better weapon, though SPA is great on it and HVA isn't really needed with 650 m/s muzzle velocity. And that's our "CQC" option, which is actually worse at CQC than Saw...


Oh another gripe. Burst variants. Sorry, but it's a cash in and should be molded into the starter weapon design. Your stat's should change changing firing modes. S variants are strange and I don't really want to touch on them at the moment, they are separate headache.

Shotguns I don't even want to touch... **** PAs



To finish my rant, what I believe should be done:
1.Weapons should be categorized into 4 types:
A)All rounder weapons.
B)CQC to medium range weapons.
C)Medium to long range weapons.
D)Faction specific unique style weapons.

2. A, B and C categories should have least 2 weapon choices, while D could integrate S variant with more faction specific weapons and one purely faction specific style weapon*

3. Weapons should be priced accordingly to this or something like this:
A) First allrounder is default weapon, second one 500 certs
B)First CQC is 100 certs and second one 1000c.
C)First 250c, second one 1000c.
D)S variant 250certs, faction specific unique 750-1k certs




*Example for 2nd point
TR:
A) T9 Carv and one new weapon/T32 with 125/896 damage model
B)MSW-R and probably new weapon with 125/896 damage model
C) T16 Bull with revised attachments and TMG-50 with revised stats and attachments (to make it competitive against other 167 weapons, though I kinda like Saw S atm)
D) T9 Carv S with 125/845 damage model and all attachments available and I mean all (AFG and ALS too) and rebalanced MCG, where tetriary fire would spin up weapon with 100/1000 damage model and 200 bullet base ammo belt (yes it's a ******* LMG, get over it)

VS is way harder for me to specialize :/ this way. But what about making some new "charge mechanic" (READ ON) in style of ramping up the damage at cost of accuracy. The more you fire, the higher your damage becomes but your CoF bloom increases from 0.04 to 0.06 at max damage. Damage increase wouldn't be that drastic, but change would kick in quite quickly. Third shot would be max damage, like 143>155>167. RPM wouldn't change, 577 or 600 would be enough with higher than usual accuracy of the weapon. Like 0 CoF first shot.

A)SVA-88 and Flare (buffed)
B)Orion and Polaris (respecialized to 167/600)
C)URSA and Pulsar LSW
D)Lasher (not gonna touch it) and new VS charge up mechanic type LMG - SVA-89 (s variant)


NC for me is a bit harder, since I still would like a balance revision for our CQC weapons. But it would go something like this:
A)GD-22S (up rpm to 600) and EM6
B)Anchor with worse muzzle velocity and 625 rpm and new LMG for whiners for 143/750 rpm cqc weapons.
C)NC Gauss Saw S (renamed as Gauss Saw) and EM1 with revised attachment options.
D)NC6 Gauss Saw (renamed as S version) and Jackhammer with bit change up mechanics a maybe (need to work on that)

I'm curious if there are particular holes he had in mind if he mentioned any?

Which hence is why the Anchor doesnt have the same mag size lol =D

Kinda wish the Anchor and EM6 velocity would swap places. Anchor is the CQC weapon, velocity means squat in that realm. EM6 is a short-mid range weapon, velocity means a tiny bit more.

Also, why did SoE nerf the EM6's damage drop off from 85m to 75m? It totally used to be 167@10m-143@85m.

I think this is fairly simple.

All weapons should fulfill a specific role intended by the developer.

Reasons:
1. If you have two weapons that the player feel are pretty much the same, they will not have a good experience if they buy both from the store. They will not notice a difference and will not want to spend more cash since they don't know if the next one will be different either.
2. Weapons that are unique are easier to sell in the store simply because players will want guns that allow them to fulfill certain roles better.
3. Unique weapons allow for more varied gameplay, and are thus more fun.
4. Balancing weapon performance limited to specific roles is easier than balancing weapons against a multitude of similiar'ish weapons.


TLDR; if two or more weapons are similiar in feel and fulfill the same role, redesign them. If all of the weapons fulfill a specific role, make new ones.