I might be wrong.. but are NC weapons better than TR?

NC worst weapons all around? Do you play all 3 factions? I do, got almost 3K hours into the game.

Hard hitting guns are good at range, are good at having slightly less recoil, or more controllable recoil with less RNG, to have to manage by burst firing. More damage per bullet on an LMG with large magazine burst fired for accuracy at range will outperform a lower damage higher RoF gun because one can afford to burst fire high damage (eg. 167 saw vs 112 Carv) while the high RoF gun needs more rounds hitting the target but dealing with an RNG mechanic that's not possible to compensate for.

Take the Anchor - 167@10m/125@75m 600 RPM 570m/s small right bias, SPA 0.88 first shot kick
the MAW - 167@10m/125@75m 600 RPM 550m/s slight right bias 0.875 first shot kick
and the MSW-R - 143@10m/112@65m 750 RPM 580m/s hard right bias, SPA 0.875 first shot kick
or Polaris - 143@20m/112@65m 659 RPM 625m/s, right bias, SPA 0.6 first shot kick
all 3 can be full auto fired with predictable recoil in CQC, but losing a slight interval to increase accuracy by bursting is always an option.

NC have the most diverse arsenal of infantry weapons, one gun that fits any scenario. TR do not. The TMG-50 since the global LMG nerf loses 2 tiers of damage at range, has high RNG mechanic, and the only thing going for it, 0.675 first shot kick, is beat by the Polaris. I've aruaxiumed the thing long ago and it's the only weapon that felt like walking without a gun in your hand since one is at complete mercy of the thing's inability to have a single redeeming feature to leverage in a longer range encounter.

TR have to fall back on the NS15 or Bull or Naginata for full auto for range. VS have Ursa, Flare, Maw. NC's arsenal is clearly suitable for range, while TR for up close except that NC does not lack in CQC whatsoever: Promise 143@10m/112@65m 698 RPM 550m/s (687.5 with sprw), 100-75/500mag, a laser of an LMG that can sustain fire and take on a 750 RPM carv by accuracy potential alone.

This is just looking at LMGs as I won't cover every gun in the game to get the idea.

As for VS? Bullet drop, the only guns that actually benefit from it are scout rifles, battle rifles, and the Phaseshift (empire-specialty hybird) the latter of which has a very low bullet velocity, and a very high kick in bolt-action mode. Bolt-action snipers, which would benefit, have bullet drop like other sniper rifles, and their projectile velocities are not outstanding - NC take the lead again with RailJack assuming fire delay doesn't get in the way. Lancer no bullet drop does not help it as it also suffers from low projectile velocity and it's supposed to be a laser, and a low ammo pool even if firing 3 charge shots.

VS low recoil? Recoil alone doesn't make a huge difference since it's one of those weapon properties than you can compensate for and thus the weapon's skill potential is higher, but NC again takes the lead here with Promise 0.6 first shot kick (the multiplier times the vertical recoil), GD22 0.6, compared to 0.568 pulsar lsw or 0.6 polaris or 0.593 ursa. Also compare the Gauss Saw 0.9075 to Orion 0.9, yes the Saw is hard to handle due to very high recoil that continues while firing unlike the orion but that first shot kick that matters on burst fire is actually the same, and it's still much lower than the Naginata.

VS RoF. I don't see anything significant in the LMG category to make VS outstanding for damage profiles, and where TR take the lead with Butcher, Watchman, and MCG (heavy weapon).

VS has better moving ads accuracy than the other factions. NC has to stand still to beat it. And TR.... We'll.... Shoot more bullets!

Very interesting, I don't doubt your knowledge, but I'll test to watch for this more carefully as I'm desperate to find a reason to keep playing VS too.

TR is the most fun personally, but is it every infuriating landing a ton of headshots from fast firing guns that Do Not Register. I feel cheated out by the game itself. Only 2 min ago fired a fast firing gun in a crowd, *shield shimmers everywhere* but no damage markers. Horrible attachment options, unreliable RoF bound by FPS, and this nonsense makes PS2 frustrating - nevermind the other nonsense in the game.

Yes, they are. Very much so. And VS weapons are better than NC again. TR is hard mode. The only way to compensate for the TR's shortcoming is to buy a very expensive PC that can give you 120 FPS at all times. In this instance you might be more or less on par. For normal setups with less FPS than that, you are basically farming stock for the other two empires.

The fact that the game has been declining so much in population lately is the constant double-teaming of TR by NC and VS. The reason for this is the weapon imbalance. What is pretty much left in the game is people preening their K/D. Obviously they like to go down the path of least resistance. Which means for NC and VS both, that TR makes easier kills over the other choice. Ergo the constant double teaming.

This contributes a lot to the drop in population, TR players getting frustrated and switching or giving the game up for good. Already we can't support two full cont fights anymore on a weekend night. None of this of course means anything to the other empires as long as they have their fun. None of it seems to matter to the devs either. Unless something is done to fix the TR, this game is done in a few months. The only true MMOFPS might be history. Let's see who cries then.

You are completely delusional and uninformed (then again, this is Forumside). NC gets the best infantry weapon selection by a country mile, already just by having competitive damage dropoff values for ranged fights. NC do not have significantly more DPS than TR or VS. The meta options for all factions put them on equal ground, yet NC takes the win by having more than 2-3 usable weapons per category.

This applies maybe if you have terrible aim, but as soon as the player is decent at the game, this does not apply.

Even more delusional than what you said before. Do you live in 2013? VS has the worst overall infantry weapon arsenal. No bullet drop doesn't matter on any guns but the Battle Rifles, VS weapons have about equal recoil as TR and NC weapons (keeping in mind that no guns in the game have particularly challenging recoil to begin with), and VS weapons have lower RoF than TR in most cases and lower damage than NC. So in the end, VS weapons have nothing going for them and lose in competition to NC and TR weapons.

Absolutely delusional. VS weapons are far worse than NC and somewhat worse than TR. TR is not hard mode, that's something that victim complex idiots like Bazino would say. I average 50-60 FPS and have no issues at all with TR weapons, mostly because I am good at the game. Also I didn't blame my own inabilities at aiming and using guns on the game.

You are actually Bazino, aren't you? What you're saying is exactly as dumb as what he posts. At least he attempts to bring up some evidence, you just spew braindead stuff without ever backing anything up.

They also have less bloom per shot ADS on the Orion and Pulsar (0.04) compared to all other 143 DMG lmgs (0.05). This equates to one "free" shot as far as accuracy is concerned for every 4th bullet in a burst. Recoil aside, after shooting 4 bullets with the MSW-R you are as accurate as after 5 bullets with the Orion, after 8 bullets on MSW-R you could have shot 10 with the Orion, after 12 bullets 15 with Orion, and so on.

Generally I keep my bursts under 12 bullets because after that weapon bloom has reduced my effective DPS so much that enemies are finished faster with a small pause and second burst. On the Orion however, it's just point and squeeze for a faster kill.

Sure is making a big deal of 0.01 additional bloom there, sir, while casually waving away lower recoil (and not mentioning SPA).

So "VS have better weapons" have been reduced to such insignificance we're now arguing the 0.01 additional bloom makes the difference between being able to never burst fire and going full auto.

12 bullet bursts seem quite a lot for a 750+ RPM weapon as well. I'd look into micro-bursting. I mean, at the ranges where bursting stops being relevant I find it highly unlikely you can notice or manage the difference of 0.01 difference in bloom. Maybe you can though.

Not as a rule. TAR/HV45 has the same. TMG-50 and Ursa have the same. Looking at the Bull and Rhino, they're equal or better than the Polaris. The Bull, in particular, is incredibly accurate AND have a lot of attachments. It pays for this with 652RPM but that's how it tends to be. Low RPM for its damage model equals more accuracy. TR also tend to have both bigger mags and RPM so, well, often will shoot more bullets with a higher rate of fire. With lower RPM (with the same damage model) you need to hit more bullets. In the instance of the Orion VS MSW-R, the latter has lower recoil and SPA.

I think it is important to highlight the trade-offs and advantages. I'm not saying VS is worse or better off. However, it ain't as clear cut as VS simply having better ADS accuracy on the move. Quite a bit of variance and similarities depending on damage model and RPM. Looks like it more depends on weapon type/class.

I was waving away the recoil, because Orion has better recoil in some aspects, in particular horizontal recoil and first shot multipliers:

Orion Recoil
Vertical: 0.4
Horizontal, Min/Max: 0.22/0.22
Horizontal Tolerance: 0.8
Angle Min/Max: 0°/0°
Bias: ← = →
Recoil Decrease: 13
First Shot Recoil Multiplier: 2.25x

MSW-R Recoil
Vertical: 0.35
Horizontal, Min/Max: 0.225/0.225
Horizontal Tolerance: 0.55
Angle Min/Max: 17°/20°
Bias: →
Recoil Decrease: 13
First Shot Recoil Multiplier: 2.5x

This difference becomes ~ 0.2 seconds faster TTK per necessitated burst, which is quite significant.

Where bursting is irrelevant 20% improved accuracy deterioration in full-auto more than compensates for SPA, as the Orion holder may safely go for headshots while the MSW-R must go for bodyshots. At even closer ranges the SPA does not have any effect.

That's such an absurd statement. Plenty of people do well with the candy cannon, that doesn't mean it's balanced. And it's no secret that only running 50-60 frames takes a good chunk out of TR dps, ruining what would have been a balanced gun. Sure, you can compensate for that with skill, I main TR and do alright with their guns, though I do prefer NC's. But bragging about how well you do in a balance discussion because of your skill is just silly. Go over to Reddit if you want a circle jerk with everyone talking about how good they are at this game.

Completely agree. I just mentioned a single thing that VS often has going for it. I hate playing VS, but I do the best with their guns. After comparing numbers between my favorites on the other factions and their relative VS gun, I noticed better moving ads accuracy (I'm always moving, and I'm not saying that better accuracy is a hard rule), and more damage per burst before accuracy goes out the window, again, not a hard rule. I'd classify myself as a super l33t mlg scrub. I have a gjpod headshot ratio but my bursting skills and track are NG aren't up to speed. TR really was more spray and prey, with guns that work over wider ranges. VS is more accurate on the move and more forgiving in regards to bursting. And I think NC has the highest potential, but you NEED to be on point with your aim, recoil control, and burst firing. But there are plenty of outliers and I agree that each faction has their ups and downs. I would never say that one is the best and another is thge worst.

Yeah, not buying it. Your entire case rests on bloom per shot being the be all end all stat for bursting and that's clearly not the case at all. Orion is a great weapon though. I'm not arguing the MSW-R destroys the Orion like nothing but making the claim that the MSW-R has 0.2 seconds longer TTK per burst because of 0.01 difference in bloom is nonsense.

You are welcome to present a concrete example where bursting is applicable for any reason other than resetting accuracy after it has deteriorated due to bloom. Or how the bursting pause in otherwise continuous fire does not increase TTK.

I won't dispute either of those statements.

I'm disputing the value you put on 0.01 additional bloom. If your aim is accuracy with higher RPM weapons you should micro-burst. I am also confused at the lack of value you put on SPA for close range weapons. The tiny amount of velocity sacrificed makes SPA objectively better than not having access to it. In addition, this tiny difference somehow leads you to believe MSW-R users are forced going to body shots. It is ridiculous.

If a new barrel attachment was released: "Reinforced Barrel - reduces weapon bloom by 20%", would you not equip it over a flash supressor? or a compensator? If the attachment took the ammo slot instead, would you not consider it over SPA? Because I sure would.

Also my aim with all weapons is to kill the opponent as fast as possible. This means to go for headshots to reap the 2x damage multiplier unless:

1. The opponent has less health left than the damage a bodyshot would induce (<143*0.8 = 114.3)
2. I am more than 2.5 times as likely to hit with an aimed bodyshot than an aimed headshot

The reasoning in 1) is that I'm always more likely to hit the body than the head and the end result will not differ regardless of which location I go for. The reasoning in 2) is that my damage dealt will, on average, be higher if I go for bodyshots in those situations. Of course if the target does not wear nanoweave the numbers above change to <143 and 2 times as likely.

Now go to the VR, pick a target at 20 or 30 meters, and try to kill it without releasing the trigger. You will find that after ~12 bullets condition 2) above holds. That's why I say MSW-R users must go for bodyshots if their aim is to win a 1-on-1 engagement. And as already explained, after 12 rounds the Orion can fire 3 additional ones before reaching the same level of deteriorated accuracy. These extra rounds of high accuracy increase the Orion user's average DPS.

After these 12 rounds on the MSW-R, and 15 rounds on Orion, it makes sense for the wielders to start going for bodyshots. Alternatively, it would make sense to release the trigger and start a second burst IF it would lead to a faster kill. This depends on a number of factors including: range of engagement, amount of ADADing, remaining health of target, hit percentage and so on. But the point is that 0.01 less bloom is quite helpful here, perhaps more so than the benefit of SPA.

Alright, fair enough. I think we just have a different approach to infantry combat. I usually don't extend my bursts that far.

Every thread only seems to compare heavy assault, one playstyle, this and every bodies math seems to be focused on raw dps not effective damage range. Hell I even run HVA on everything, I find soft point only good on a few guns and I think the NS has by far the best guns, ns11p was always better than the gr and cqc sniping always more effective than the gays saw. The carv is great even, but the game has always been imbalanced in cycles, one faction get an op toy, gets nerfed. On anything that matters you pretty much get carbon copies and that .01s ttk only ever mattered in extreme close quarters. My advise, stop playing heavy assault, yeah you guys do get stitched up in that regard.

This is actually inaccurate. The high bullet damage guns do not have any more accuracy or less RNG element to deal with. Let's look at the SAW and CARV for example.

The SAW has a stand-move-aim starting CoF of 0.4, and a bloom of 0.07 per shot, or 0.07 per 200 damage, or 0.00035 per damage point.

The CARV has a stand-move-aim starting CoF of 0.4, and a bloom of 0.05 per shot, or 0.05 per 143 damage, or 0.000349 per damage point.

This means that the guns have the SAME RNG element to deal with at any given range, but the CARV fills the Cone of Fire with more bullets than the SAW. If the SAW user is lucky, they might score a few consistent chunks of damage, but if they are unlucky, they may do little to no damage at all. Whereas the CARV is far more likely to apply consistent damage. So in effect, the opposite of what you said is true; the high bullet damage guns are far more susceptible to RNG than the high ROF guns.

The CARV also does slightly higher raw DPS at maximum range than the SAW. So, at the end of the day, you have two identically-sized cones of fire, one filled with fewer, higher-damage bullets and with an overall lower DPS, or one filled with more, lower-damage bullets and an overall higher DPS.

People tend to come at things from their own perspective and very often look VERY hard on what they haven't got. So if one faction has X or Y they see that a lot more clearly than what makes their faction, gear, and vehicles good.

I mean, fine, I can accept if bloom matters this much to some but on the other hand, I've never experienced this impacting me in game. To me, it looks like wiki-searching and forumsiding just to find something to get upset about but again maybe this really does impact them. Others like SPA, HVA, etc etc.

As far as HA is concerned, it is more or less the staple of infantry combat so often comes up as a basis for argument. You have a point though. Sometimes it feels like we're always comparing the same weapons which also perpetuates the myth of VS have magically more accurate weapons.

It is accurate because a slight pause in a low RoF high damage gun does not harm total damage so much in that same unit of time as a high RoF low damage gun.