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

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ConcernedPlanetsider, Jan 9, 2019.

  1. BigG

    you can't say ********? what a bunch of carebears.
  2. pnkdth

    Yes, I agree there are also recoil patterns and such to consider (like I've been saying). I am not sure I'd call that particular technique pro level. It has been mentioned in guides made by Wrel, Camikaze, etc, etc. Again, "pro" players in PS2 has routinely gone for the Anchor (and the second choice MSW-R since the ADS movement nerf of the Orion). I'm happy using either one though.

    Yeah, definitely not because of the heat mechanic... Seems a bit dishonest to pair the Orion on par with the BG since it is pretty well known the BG has benefited immensely from this unique mechanic. The fact you go straight for the slightly improved bloom shows your confirmation bias.

    Also, let's talk about the Anchor.
    A.KPU: 4th place, only beaten by each faction's directive weapon.
    A.KDR: Highest of ALL "normal" LMGs and even beating the Butcher.
    A.KPH: This is more leveled out, being beaten by the MAW (if slightly).

    There are plenty of other LMGs which hasn't got the amazing 20% less bloom who are performing really well. Stop with the tunnel vision.
  3. Campagne

    I hope you're ready for some CoF maths, because here's the good old CoF formula again:
    [y = i + xb], where y = final CoF, i = starting CoF, x = consecutive shots fired, and b = bloom per shot.

    Now to compare the few specifics here: Orion/Betelgeuse (0.1 min, 0.4 max, 0.04 bloom), MSW-R (0.1 min, 0.35 max, 0.05 bloom), Anchor (0.03 min, 0.35 max, 0.06 bloom), MAW (0.03 min, 0.4 max, 0.06 bloom), and as a bonus the GOD/SAW (0 min, 0.4 max, 0.07 bloom).

    Here are the values for average shots to kill of most damage models: 5, 6, 7, 8, and as a bonus 15. Expected shots to kill are underlined. To demonstrate the trend is continuous simply substitute the number of shots fired with any number possible.

    Orion/Betelgeuse minimum values = 0.30, 0.34, 0.38, 0.42, 0.70
    MSW-R minimum values = 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.85
    Anchor minimum values = 0.33, 0.39, 0.45, 0.51, 0.93
    MAW minimum values = 0.33, 0.39, 0.45, 0.51, 0.93
    GOD/SAW minimum values = 0.35, 0.42, 0.49, 0.56, 1.05

    Orion/Betelgeuse maximum values = 0.60, 0.64, 0.68, 0.72, 1.00
    MSW-R maximum values = 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75, 1.10
    Anchor maximum values = 0.65, 0.71, 0.77, 0.83, 1.25
    MAW maximum values = 0.70, 0.76, 0.82, 0.88, 1.30
    GOD/SAW maximum values = 0.75, 0.82, 0.89, 0.96, 1.45

    As the data shows, because of the slightly lower bloom per shot the Orion/Betelgeuse is almost always more accurate than any of the other weapons even after each weapon stops once a kill has been made, with the sole exception being the SAW with five bodyshots. The innate higher accuracy bursts and full-auto fire is free and permanent and is universally beneficial across all engagements and ranges, whereas Soft Point ammo leaves deadzones of effectiveness and has a cap on effectiveness at range.

    You're down-playing one of the most important aspects of any weapon in this game: Accuracy.
    • Up x 3
  4. pnkdth

    False, I'm also considering other stats that make up a weapon instead of tunnel visioning on bloom per shot. Why? Because damage and rate of fire of a weapon must be considered as well, as must recoil patterns, tolerance and amounts, attachments and such. I've posted this over and over in this thread.

    You guys are simply doubling down on a stat which suits your confirmation bias and cannot seem to understand there are other values on weapons which both affect performance and accuracy. Otherwise, high precision weapons stats would reflect this as well.
  5. Campagne

    The Orion and MSW-R have the exact same damage values and ranges and RoF. Recoil is only slightly different. The MSW-R has an advanced laser and soft point but it otherwise the same. Basically the only major differences here are the straving CoFs and bloom. We're not talking about hipfire, so it's down to a 0.05 difference in ADS strafing CoF and a 0.01 difference in bloom per shot.

    As the fiery CoF numbers tell you the Orion is notably more accurate almost 100% of the time. You're putting extra emphasis on very small differences which are unlikely to have the same impact as bloom would.

    Funnily enough, high accuracy weapons such as most of the NS lines are considered not only viable but highly competitive due solely to their accuracy. It's not a perception bias, it's an understanding of the major staggering impact on gameplay.

    Not only does higher accuracy mean more successful kills, it also means longer bursts and higher practical DPS. If an MSW-R needs 7 shots to kill and misses once the user will either have to maintain fire and have a greater chance of a subsequent miss compared to an Orion in the same setting or allow the CoF to reset, lowering DPS. And this is only assuming the target isn't a laggy strafing nano-adrenaline heavy with an AOE heal going off beside him who'd need damn near 20 rounds.

    Soft point isn't going to make the difference, the CoFs will.
    • Up x 1
  6. pnkdth

    Exactly, slightly different COF and slightly different recoil. Each has a small edge over each other.

    I think you were missing the point on what I meant with high precision weapons as I do not disagree with precision being competitive. The CME is deceptively strong, for example, as is the Bull/Rhino, and so on. I've even had great success with the A-Tross which on paper does not look particularly great despite *gasp* its 0.07 bloom per shot. It is a headshot machine.

    Of course, SPA can make a fatal difference. There are instances where you will literally be able to kill your opponent faster than he is able to given the same damage model. Even the oddballs such as the Polaris/EM1 has ranges where they'll be able to out DPS the Orion (extended by SPA).

    I also hope I'm not giving off the appearance of arguing the Orion is outclassed. It is a great weapon, as well.
  7. csvfr

    The high-precision weapons include Orion, Pulsar, Betleguse
    The low-recoil weapons weapons include NS-15 + others.

    There is a fundamental difference here. Accuracy, or the cone-of-fire, is an area centered on the crosshair where bullets are fired into according to an RNG. It cannot be compensated for by skill, training, or anything except hacks so the shooter is always at the mercy of what the CoF permits him to do.

    Recoil on the other hand, is a partially predictable displacement of the crosshair adding to itself after each successive shot. It is divided into a vertical and horizontal component, where the vertical part is fully predictable and the horizontal part constrained by tolerance limits. This allows to predict horizontal recoil sometimes too, for instance, if the current displacement is at the far edge of one of the tolerance limits. As one shoots more with a weapon, muscle memory learns to adapt to it.
    • Up x 1
  8. pnkdth

    The only thing you're doing here is toying with semantics because you have no argument to speak of.
  9. csvfr

    At least its not ad-hominen.
  10. Campagne

    Yes, but the edge of a better CoF bloom is more important than recoil is what I'm arguing.

    Vertical recoil usually isn't an issue, which I think you'll probably agree with me on. Horizontal recoil obviously is and while both bloom and recoil cannot be controlled beyond bursting, the forward grip attachment helps to negate the recoil somewhat while nothing exists for the bloom.

    The important difference to note is that recoil moves the reticle, bloom puts bullets around the reticle instead of on it.

    The A-Tross like all 200/~500s is not a headshot machine. That is, not unless the user is stationary, does not fire more than four bullets at maximum, and does not fire from very long range. This is all because of bloom and not recoil.

    If strafing the initial CoF will be 0.32 which is already large enough to miss otherwise well-placed shots at range. If more than a total of four shots are fired without resetting the cone the minimum CoF if stationary will be 0.28 or 0.6 when strafing. With a cone so large shots will miss the head. Bloom single-handedly forces the weapon to burst or miss every other shot.

    The differences even in ideal situations for SPA is marginal, generally all but a single bullet. Bloom can often result in more than a single shot missing. An Orion without SPA would likely miss less than an MSW-R with SPA in a range where it will have a positive impact. Tighter CoFs are universally more effective under any circumstance.

    Yes, both are excellent short-mid range LMGs.
  11. Rydenan

    Wait a minute.
    Are you actually hearing yourself?
  12. Rydenan

    Recoil and cone of fire are completely different things.
    The mere fact that you think they are only semantically different shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
  13. pnkdth

    I don't have to do a single solitary thing and the difference still only be 0.01. You had to manipulate the numbers to get where you wanted to go. 1st you added 20% of raw damage, then factored in the rate of fire, calculated DPS and then, finally, you reduce it down to very small decimals. Pretty much illustrates why staring yourself blind on a 20% difference can mean very different things.

    On the one hand, we have the difference between 0.04 and 0.05 bloom per shot and on the other hand, you created a new damage model. To make your example more accurate you should have also reduced the rate of fire to accommodate the 20% increase in damage. I think most of us here can agree that a weapon simply having more 20% more damage per bullet doesn't make them 20% better. You would probably want to factor in other things, I'm sure.

    Much like how weapons have different recoil mechanics to make them more/less accurate. Like in Campagne's post above we could argue on the merits of lower COF/recoil/attachments and which gives more of an edge. Which leads me to your other reply.

    I was referring to him defining high precision / low recoil weapons to create a point of contention that wasn't there. I think it was pretty obvious than when I mentioned high precision weapons I was referring to weapons which are precise and accurate/controllable. He then went on making a random lecture hoping it'll look like I disagree with it. It worked apparently.

    In other words, when I mentioned precision weapons I included low recoil weapons (also in relation to damage model/ROF) since they are very accurate weapons. For whatever reason, he completely ignored that.
  14. csvfr

    If you take a look at Iridar's blog he classifies the recoil types into qualitative groups. Although he makes a distinction between constant zero and constant non-zero recoil angles, this is not necessary as holding the mouse at an angle makes these groups equivalent. As such there are really just 4 types of recoil:
    • Type 1: Singular angle, Singular shift
    • Type 2: Singular angle, Varied shift
    • Type 3: Varied angle, Singular shift
    • Type 4: Varied angle, Varied shift
    Type 1 is the easiest to handle and most predictable type of recoil. The other types become progressively worse with with Type 4 being the hardest type of recoil.

    In reference to Campagne's post, we can take a deeper look at the recoil of the guns mentioned.

    Orion - straight recoil gun of type 1 which can kick twice to either direction. With a horizontal recoil of 0.22 this becomes a recoil based "line-of-fire" equal to 0.22*4=0.88. After a few shots the crosshair will invariably be on 1 of 3 "points" along this line, with more probability of being at the center. Illustrated as a recoil pattern:

    GODSAW - this is also a straight recoil gun of type 1 with 2 kicks maximum to either side. Its horizontal recoil is 0.14 which gives a line-of-fire equal to 0.14*4=0.56. This is 0.32 less than the Orion/Betlegeuse, so you were right and may argue on its merits/edge.

    MSW-R and Anchor are varied angle guns of type 3, MAW is a type 4 weapon. All these weapons can kick 2 times maximum. But because of the varied angle, the line-of-fire actually becomes a "recoil-area" that enlargens with successive shots. So a direct comparison can't be made as easily - their imprecision extends along a a different dimension.
  15. Campagne

    Don't worry about any of those arguments or anything.... Ya' know, ignoring all my arguments without providing any real reasoning or supportive arguments as to why you disagree.

    Anyways, as I've said before a weapon with large CoFs and no recoil is not accurate. 200/~500 guns are terrible on the move and have the worst bloom despite requiring the most accuracy. Furthermore, the ability to strike the exact same spot repeatedly is infinitely more important than holding a sight on the same area.

    To roughly paraphrase myself, recoil ain't **** when the bullets don't go to the crosshair in the first place.
  16. pnkdth

    That was a reply to csvfr (well, a reply to a quote in another reply). So rather meant to Rydenan. So I can understand the confusion here.

    I absolutely grant that COF affects your accuracy. Where I diverge is how much this affects overall accuracy in practical terms of actually scorings hits, i.e. controlling recoil to mitigate and manage the COF to avoid it blooming too much. 200/500 weapons in my experience are not untamable beasts who are widely inaccurate either. Obviously, it requires bursting but that goes without saying for almost any weapon if accuracy is your concern.
  17. Campagne

    Going ten hours between replies yet commenting on a post following mine on the very same page as the previous reply is pretty much ignoring the post. I'm sure it didn't take three hours to type up these few lines, so don't try to condescend me so. If you don't want to continue the discussion with me, fine. It'll only hurt my feelings a little bit. :p

    Also in a public forum any given post is practically open for anyone, as is intended, and directly referring to a person without addressing them personally does not block them from wedging in to the thread. If anything you're opening the door to me and turning your head the other way. :p

    Bursting negatively impacts DPS and TTKs. Lower initial CoFs and blooms allow for longer bursts and longer full-auto ranges, both of which equate to faster kills. 200/~500s are some of the least accurate guns in the game when fired on the move, having both large strafing CoFs and the highest bloom. As such, even the SAW (especially the SAW, 0.4 ADS CoF) suffers more from its bloom than it does from the recoil. Bursting with a high-bloom weapon is less effective than bursting with a lower-bloom weapon.

    Comes full circle, recoil doesn't come even close to cones of fire in terms of impact and importance.
  18. Nenarch

    I consider NC guns better than VS after testing them out with alts. Anyways stats are stats, they affect when your playing against same lvl guy in gameplay as yourself otherwise not really in my experience.

    When I get into a duel situation with other player, it comes down to weapon choise. Had to swap my weapon to Orion to win those duels, these days one option is SMG aswell but I don't use them other than doing auraxians with them, I don't like the Small clip size.
  19. Rydenan

    The irony of what you're saying seems to completely escape you, so let me try this another way:

    The Orion blooms 20% less than its competitors. 0.01 is a meaningless number and a completely arbitrary unit. It has no place in this discussion.
    At the end of the day, all that matters is that the Orion's cone of fire will have increased 20% less than its competitors after firing the same number of rounds. And that is significant.
    Period. Period.
  20. pnkdth

    So the actual difference between the two weapons have no place in this discussion? You're going to have to qualify that statement a bit better than repeating the word "period."

    I referenced your name in bold. If you don't follow the thread then that's on you.

    Also, we've done this dance before and I'm not going to get dragged into yet another back and forth about how 200/500 damage weapons. We disagree, I don't recognize the same issues with the weapons, or recoil, like you. Agree to disagree and all that.

    I would change place between Type 3 and Type 2 since Iridar's Type 2 (and 4) are more susceptible to the effects of bloom to remain accurate. Even though the other types are too, you can at least reduce the distance of recoil through compensating for it.