I Want To Talk About TR Problems.

All good points.

As stated before, decreasing the damage does not solve the inherent problem that was mentioned before on how it was still 'as effective' before with regards to the the 'sheer volume' it outputs. The problem happen back in Planetside 1 when they tried to make the Dual Cycler be the 'AV MAX' and the Pounder the 'AI MAX'. The Pounder became a grief machine for the user because it didn't deal with the inclose properly indoors and the Dual Cycler, even with the reduction in damage on the AI component, didn't stop it being a beast as an AI weapon.

The better solution here is to swap the Marauder and the Vulcan so that one, the AV component is not nearly as great and make it the TR AI weapon. Because even if you nerf the Vulcan's AI component, it will still be used as an AI weapon. If you reduce the AV component of an AV weapon, you make the AV weapon more of an AI only weapon where it is better used on infantry than all around, it would be basically a much noisier Basilisk gun.

And as much as I hate the harasser as a tanker, you can't nerf the Harasser too much either, as it was designed for hit and run attacks, just as the flash is. You also don't want to nerf the weapons on the harasser too much, otherwise it becomes a much more expensive flash in some cases.

That's the thing... The Annihilator is not a 'lockon to everything' Same with the Striker. The NS Annihilator only locks onto aircraft and Vehicles, same with the Striker. The only difference between the Annihilator and the Striker is the striker has more rounds in a single reload, slightly faster missile round and now tracking must be maintained while missiles are in flight. This fits the theme the weapon was designed for. Also, you keep forgetting, as many of the other people here who keep failing to grasp this time and time again...

The Striker in PS 1, was originally a 3 missile, Lockon based rocket launcher that only the TR had. Of the Factions, they were the only ones with the infantry carried lock on weapons. The other three lockon weapons were the Common Pool Wasp A2A Missile launcher, the VS Starfire Anti-Air MAX and the NC Sparrow Anti-Air MAX. The Lancer and the Phoenix are also based on the PS1 designs with some tweaks. I mentioned the slight differences, but also, the FINAL version of the Striker was a Lockon Launcher, with the option to turn off the lockon and fire it dumbfired, 5 round magazine and required not only 'locking on' to the target, but maintain lock through the flight of the missiles. In Planetside 1, you could reload while those missiles were in flight, but you had to also make sure you keep the lockon going to keep the missiles homing in on the target.

People liken the Lancer and Phoenix as 'side grades' to using the default launcher or the Decimator, which I also criticized people this is not the case. And again, the Striker is not a 'side grade' or an 'upgrade' of the NS Annihilator, because the assumption that the Striker does 2500 consistently is a farce.

Here's the problem with 'extensive mathematical calculations'...

GreyFalcon, pride of the Vanu players on Planetside 1, drafted several spreadsheet arguments about the Thunderer, the NC Deliverer Variant, which sported 2 Gauss Cannons, basically heavy railguns that fired heavy damage rounds.

In the bevy of all his calculations, data gathered from just the VR to see how much damage it does, he calculated various TTKs that made the Thunderer sound like it was a much better AV killer than the Magrider, sporting the Railgun, as both weapons fired roughly the same speed with near the same level muzzle speed.

Now, I retorted back to him with regards to the Thunderer... Classic example, the Thunderer manned by 2 people, only one gun going... In a 'toe to toe' fight with it using a Lightning (Which only sports a 75mm cannon). Spreadsheet calculations, I should have been dead before doing 25% damage to the thunderer.

However, Spreadsheet calculations don't take into consideration the following:
Gunner skill, accuracy based on terrain, movement and target's movement. The problem with any spreadsheet calculation argument, is the assumption that all things are nice and controlled. In that fight with the Thunderer... I lasted longer and managed to bring the Thunderer to at least 50% damage in a lightning. A fight where I should have have died well before getting to that according to spreadsheet calculations.

Same thing why I argue about the whole usage and score bit on the Planetside 2 stats. Its great we can all see these numbers and argue how OP the TR weapons are based on the number of people using it and the overwhelming shots fired, shots hit... And completely ignore how the point averages come in. All things being equal, averages should be 'leaning' towards where it is consistent. However, in most fights, people ignore the fact that in a striker squad, as an example, one person can get higher scores because they get a majority of the kills, but it was a 'shared effort' and those points are kiltered based on the fact that two other people will be getting scores for 'assist' on the vehicle kill, the one person will not only get the score for killing the vehicle, if that vehicle didn't bail out, that person will also get the points for the people who died, which artificially inflates the value of the weapon. The data collected and presented is not 'right'... The arguments based on that data is also 'not right'. While I play by the 'feel' of the game, I play on both sides of the weapon to get the proper perspective.

From a reasonable perspective, certain parts were not 'right', but they can be fixed to a degree, but the expectation needs adjustment.

I hate to tell you this, but that won't solve the problem. Again, while you cite the Late game TR, you missed the fact the TR then griped about the following:

TR AA MAX - The Burster (The NC and VS had Lockon AA MAXes while the Burster required skill to work with)
The Cycler - While it had 50 round magazines, its CoF bloomed faster than the Gauss Rifle or the Pulsar did for the other factions.
The MCG - was a pain to use in comparison to the NC's Jackhammer which ripped up people or the Lasher when it was tweaked a bit.
The Prowler - The tank with the highest DPS of all three MBTs, yet constantly complained about due to its sluggish acceleration, medium armor, its larger profile and the necessity to have 3 people to do the major dps (Remember, Planetside 1, you had to GET OUT OF THE TANK to switch seats, none of this swapping seats inside.)
Maruader (The TR Buggy) - Suffered the same problem as the Prowler, needing 'more' people to be as effective as the equivalent buggy.
The Raider (The TR Deliverer Variant) - Again, requiring 5 people to do the maximum damage, 1 driver, 4 gunners.

The NC were touted as the NewbConglomerate because of:

The Vanguard - hardest hitting tank with reasonable accuracy, had the most armor and better acceleration than the Prowler.
The Jackhammer - death incarnate in short range fights.
The Guass Rifle - best COF
The Phoenix - Able to hit most targets from positions.
The Scattercannon AI MAX - was pretty decent MAX to use against AMSes as well as Falcons.
The Sparrow AA MAX - Fire and forget lockon missiles.

Again, that was the argument back then. The TR weapons are generally what most people are familiar with, that being the 'spray and pray' type. Not many people go with 'single shot' or 'burst shot' or even understand to use controlled fire or firing lanes or even some of the basics of firing a weapon besides the simple 'point' and pull the trigger part.

Most people will also favor the 'spray and pray' guns because it doesn't require being 'super accurate', which is why assault rifles are often fired in auto or burst because it is less about being accurate and more about making sure there is a chance of hitting something.

Read up sometime about how guns were used in the past prior to the Civil war. Most infantry battles were rows of men advancing and firing 'walls' of bullets at another group because accuracy of their guns were crap, so they focused more on volume. Same with Arrows and the like. Actual marksmenship started to come more into play with rifling and the need for accuracy over volume, and then it went down again with repeating rifles and machineguns as it is spreading out volume of fire once again.

For the NC, the harder part is the weapons are designed to force players to be more controlled on their fire because doing 'sheer volume' with harder hitting rounds would be a bit op for the NC, which is why people complained about the Jackhammer in PS1 because it was hard hitting at close range, especially with the triple burst shots made most short range encounters short.

This is pretty much in support of what I was saying.

In PS1, the NC held the 'newb friendly' prize. In PS2, the TR hold it.

What each faction needs is a range of weapons, from low-skill to high-skill - and where the faction equivalent weapons are roughly the same in terms of their skill requirement to effectiveness. They don't need to be identical, but they need to be balanced with this in mind.

Right now, for example, the VS Orion is in a good place for a newb weapon while the Gauss SAW is not. Both are good weapons, both have their strengths and weaknesses, and overall the Gauss SAW is probably the more dangerous of the two but requires more skill to utilise.

So rather than nerfing or not-nerfing or whatever, what should happen is the Orion should remain a newb weapon, and the NC should probably have something other than the Gauss SAW as their newb weapon, while the SAW exists as something to pick up later.

Every faction should have weapons designed for low-skill and weapons designed for high-skill in all categories - and there needs to be skill equivalency in gear equivalency. Otherwise we get Newb Conglomerate and Striker Monkeys. Neither is healthy for the game.

Marauder is NOT OP. It is an excellent AI weapon, no doubt about it. However, many people complain that it is a better version of the Fury. However, the Marauder's AI capabilities are offset by awful AV capabilities. Even a full clip of Marauder into a burning vehicle may not kill it. The Fury is an all-purpose weapon, meant to be effective at AI and some AV.

All this massive TR hate on forumside randomly appears at the same time of WDS. Go figure.

Problem: every faction is overpowered
Solution: Nerfside2

They buffed TR because the vanu was too popular. vanu started migrating to TR. NC complaining the TR is overpowered.

In the near future: TR is mad because NC has the most sensible art direction. NC and TR switch art styles. Vanu is given more particle effects. TR vehicles are removed from the game. NC is given Vanu vehicles. Vanu hats get 45% pointier. Planetside 2 shuts down entirely due to server stress caused by vanu hats and particle effects. 90% of playerbase moves over to GTA5 and BF4, the rest are left to wait 10 years for Planetside 3. TR complains Vanu is OP. Sony offices are burned in a fight between three angry mobs, all wearing faction specific armor made of colored Tupperware and their mother's fine china. They all wield the same weapon with a different paint job.

OK, I actually don't find much of TR overpowering but here are my concerns:

1. T2 Striker - lets just get this out of the way, plenty of spreadsheets floating around atm show what should honestly be obvious. That is to say that the weapon carried by the most played class which can target everything is indeed affecting everything. The fact that it seems to reliably hit harassers whilst other lock ons don't is like another use again.
The idea to make it like a shoulder fracture seems pretty cool.

2. Fracture (and comets) - Just too good against infantry, this is probably getting fixed (but why the falcon/pounder are being nerfed I do not know). Also I think the ravens are well made in that they are extremely hard if not impossible to hit distant targets whilst firing on the move. I think this is fair and I would like to see VS/TR maxAV get large accuracy penalties if fired on the move.

3. Vulcan - Honestly I don't struggle against harassers anywhere near as much as the community at large it seems (possibly because I roll most of vanguard/harassers with a friend). I do think the AV damage is a bit much but I would be content with mag size 60->50 personally (and even then only on the harasser version).
The AI damage on the other hand is insane, current in game stats are showing the vulcan to be significantly out killing the NC/VS fury. We have already been through this with the saron/enforcer, the FSAV is not supposed to be used for infantry killing. Reverting it back to what it was (for both prowler and harasser) would be a good idea, it can keep the larger mag.
Also Enforcer gets mag size cert tree for 2 extra rounds and possibly saron/enforcer don't need weakened versions for harasser.

4. Marauder - Personally I am fine with the faction specific stuff being slightly superior to NS equipment and I would honestly leave this alone. Instead:
Fury - 0.5sec faster reload.
Bulldog - velocity 100 -> 150, splash 600 ->700 (probably not on the air version).
Proton cannon - Not sure, I really enjoy it on the magrider, haven't used it on the harasser. Just a fire rate increase from 150 -> 180 would be fine imo (already a 2 hit kill direct and quite splashy).
C85 mod - Velocity increase either way. Also either:
. Mag size from 5(+1) to 18(+3+3+3+3).
. Mag size from 5(+1) to 8(+1+1+1+1) and also pellet count 8->12.
. Rip off the airhammer and make a splash shotgun.
Basilisk - Spread 0.5 -> 0.4.
Kobalt -> spread 0.25 -> 0.2, rpm 550 ->700. It doesn't hurt tanks, it needs to mulch infantry, also makes magsize upgrades more relevant.

5. Prowler HEAT is too effective against armour relative to other factions HEAT, however I would like to see all HEAT rounds given a damage increase to match AP. If it were up to me (gun changes only, not tanks):
AP - all tanks +25 velocity.
HEAT - damage matches AP (but without the +20% versus tanks), vanguard splash increased from 1.5-5 to 1.75-6 or splash 1000 -> 1150 if more radius is undesirable.
HE - remove reload penalty (HEAT's new damage boost makes this unnecessary), vanguard splash increased form 2-8 to 2.25-10 or splash 1000-1150 is more radius is undesirable. Prowler HE damage (direct) 600->700.
Magrider reload reduced 3.75-3.5.
Basically improve magrider vs tanks slightly, improve vanguard vs infantry slightly, leave prowler as is. Also make it safer to take HEAT (this should be the most common ammo, not AP), AP and HE are now specialist rounds which you take only if you expect a specific situation. Also makes HEAT/HE more deadly to harassers (especially HEAT)

6. ESF's are basically fine imo, I think that the reaver was overnerfed and I would love to see some small benefit such as a slightly shrunk model, larger AB fuel tank or like 2 extra bullets in the rotary but I would be fine if they were not touched.

7. Infantry weapons - Mostly fine, the NC GD-7F carbine needs a little love (just lowering the spread bloom to match every other gun in the game would be fine) because it is NC's only cqc carbine and it is quite sub par (compare to serpent, seriously?). At that point having TR with best carbines, NC with assault rifles and VS with LMG's is ok with me.
Nothing blatantly OP here.
There are tweaks which I would do but nothing drastic.

TLDNR - Basically I proposed buffs to other faction equivalents rather than TR nerfs in most cases.

Comets you got max 2shots /magazine /arm max kills per reload 1!
Fractures Infantery kill / reload= 5 AND alot higher projectile speed

dont compare those 2 please...

No... My point was that people need to stop acting like the weapons are the issue and understand how the weapons work.

My other point was that the TR have, consistently, had the weapons that focus on 'spray and pray' in general. People latch onto those weapons because the mentality of firing a spray of bullets is more preferable and more likely to generate better results. I will even admit, I prefer the 'spray and pray' in some cases because in a fast pace game, you aren't able to line up shots as nicely as you would like and the CoF in this game does not allow for much in regards to being super accurate.

In all the times I have posted to the TR on HOW to use their weapons in Planetside 1, the general gist from those players was "We have too many weapons that require 'skill', whereas the Newb Conglomerate doesn't." Now it seems to be the flipside, but the simple fact is, again, people not realizing the basic theme of the NC is about hitting hard with the slowest firing things. The SAW is not the 'slowest' firing LMG in my opinion, so the next option is to make it so its long term accuracy is not going to be great to compensate for the heavier hitting. The Carv that the TR get is lighter in the damage but focuses more on volume of fire, which means needs a few more hits but semi-accurate. The Orion has even lighter hits, but much more accurate at the same volume of fire.

Those default lmgs, assault rifles and the like focus on their corp principles, just like there are hardly ANY multi-shot clip sniper rifles for the NC, the focus there are bolt actions because of the stronger hit, but the VS and TR have their default sniper rifles as multi-shot from the get go. The TR have the repeater, a spray and pray auto-pistol, the VS the beamer which is semi-automatic and the NC the Magshot which is also a semi-automatic...

The problem here is the SAME as it was in Planetside 1... People not grasping some of the weapon systems and adopting the play style each faction has. While some weapon systems need tweaking, you all are wanting the weapons to 'be the same', and that's a slight problem with how they have the basic concept of different core focuses. In all technicality, if people want the 'same'... We should only have the NS weapons and have NS MBTs and NS ESFs and the only difference would be the uniform looks, but then that would make this the basic 'Battlefield'/CoD game, and I am sure a lot of us don't want it to be that.

I think the problem is the NC doesn't have an equally effective AI one.

Difference is one thing, being plain worse isn't the same thing.

Very good post.

Wat?

That makes no sense at all. Buffing TR because VS assumingly were too popular makes no sense, because what about the NC? Nothing you say makes sense, neither in content, nor in syllogism.

Since you're not actually reading what I'm saying, I can't refute your position. :|

But I will have one more go:

A low skill player is someone who doesn't easily understand how their weapons work and the best way to use them.
A low skill weapon is one that has a fairly high effectiveness even when the weapon user isn't familiar with the weapon's nuances.

A high skill player is someone who does understand their weapon.
A high skill weapon is one that requires the user to understand their weapon to get the most out of it, and performs considerably worse if used without that understanding.

An annihilator is a low skill weapon. A decimator is a high skill weapon. In the hands of an experienced player, the decimator is a far deadlier tool. In the hands of a newb, the annihilator is much more likely to actually hit the target, and some damage is better than no damage so the annihilator is more dangerous than the decimator in the hands of a newb.

Weapons have a lot of different adjustable parameters. It is entirely possible to build three low-skill LMGs (for example) that are each distinct from one another for faction flavour, and also do not require the user to invest time into working out how the weapon works.

Same with high skill weapons.

Simply saying 'people need to be higher skilled' doesn't solve anything, because new players by definition aren't high skill players. And if one faction has an abundance of low-skill weapons, they're going to be a more effective faction when fielding an army of rookies. And zergs in PS2 are armies of rookies.

If that was the case then I'd love my Carv-S with extended mag. Nope, it friggin sucks.. It's easy to make generalities.

This is not how I define 'weapons'. The problem with a lot of you is that you assume it is a 'low skill' to use the lockon weapons because of its effectiveness.

While the weapon does not require 'much' from the user in order to use it, it does not necessarily take the 'skill' out of it. Skill includes not just putting effort in using the weapon, but also using the appropriate weapon for the appropriate job at the appropriate time.

As much as you guys hate lockon weapons, the lockon weapon has its own weaknesses that a skilled player will acknowledge. And this is where I call you all out as far as considering 'skill' and also how to deal with said weapons. When the TR in Planetside 1 griped about their MCG, they always tried to apply the MCG like the Jackhammer, expecting it to 'massacre' people at close range. The MCG was NOT designed for that. It was designed for engaging the enemy early and walking it in. The Jackhammer was good for in close fighting, but it heavily relied on being in close with the enemy, making it a terrible weapon to engage infantry at ranges longer than medium range. Many players FAILED to grasp this.

Now looking at Lockon weapons, gripe after gripe, was always how 'easy' it was. The problem is, the complete and utter IGNORANCE of players of how to circumvent the Lockon weapons. Not just with flares, but also how you attack a known nest of these users. Same thing with the stupid Burster arguments pilots would put out. Looking again at the TR weapons, the majority gripe is about the fact they have weapons that literally 'spam' rounds. The only thing the TR are lacking is the tweak to make their fire not so accurate when they spam the fire or having the slightly weaker damage per round to cover those points of said weapons and I also pointed out the fact that the TR Marauder and Vulcan should switch roles to be more appropriate to the situation.

Going back again to why I refute it, is that we are playing a game where the focus is just pump out the fire as much as possible. In the old Planetside 1, the pure 'volume' of fire wasn't there or the 'zippiness' of getting things or dying in the process. The TTKs here are much lower and the real skill test is the ranged engagement, but once it drops below 75m, people aren't going so much for the 'skill' but the volume of fire, irregardless of the weapon and more of who can 'twitch react' better.

I will point out, I am not 'pro' or 'skillful' with weapons, but I do not consider firing a Decimator a 'high skill weapon'. The Annihilator is not exactly a 'low skill' weapon. Skill is knowing the limitations of the weapon. A low skill weapon would be one you can just have no problem accomplishing whatever you want. In this case, hitting a person over with a club is a 'low skill' weapon. Firing a gun is a medium skill effort because you just don't 'point' it and it works, you have to understand how to properly fire a gun. Firing a Tank cannon, is a bit more of a higher skill, because it isn't just knowing you push a button, but also using proper rounds for the proper target and doing more than just 'aiming'.

Note - People harp how Strikers do 2500 damage. They harp this drek so much, they neglect to note the damage itself by impression, is not always so. In every engagement I have been in as an NC or VS against the TR, I adjust to deal with the issue, knowing how the weapon works. As much as people like to gripe that it shouldn't depend on the skill of the player, the ability to guide a rocket manually is hardly 'difficult task' under the same conditions it is to let a self-guided round.

The fact that a low-skill weapon is not simply better than a higher skill weapon is because it has limitations, and the limitations are exactly why more experienced players don't use them.

Annihilator is a perfect example of this: the lock-on mechanic is not a purely i-win scenario (especially not now!) - but it does allow the user to be more reliably successful without having to spend as much effort on aiming and distance judging. The way the lock-on weapons play into control theory regarding ease of use is with a faster feedback loop than is offered by a dumbfire launcher.

This does not mean dumbfire launchers are worse, or lock-on launchers are better. It means that in the ideal scenario of use for each weapon, it is easier to score a hit with a lock-on launcher than with a dumbfire laucher. In an ideal scenario of use.

In a non-ideal scenario of use, a dumbfire launcher has more liklihood of being effective because it isn't arbitrarily hampered.

Anyway:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/balancing-for-skill

The problem I'm noting (and this is being addressed) is the skill requirement for many (not all!) TR weapons in the PS2 environment means they are balanced for a lower skill than others are. This is a problem for everyone: for the non-TR it means TR newbs/zerg hit above their 'skill level', and for TR it means that with some game investment their options for weapons that better suit their play style and skill level are less.

In PS1, NC were in the same position.

So I'm going back to stating that we're arguing cross-points on the same thing: having one faction with what appears to be OP weapons (appears to be or feels-like, regardless of actual OPness) is going to result in that faction being more attractive to new players, which is in turn going to lead to an overpopulation issue.

Or, in this case, we can talk about it in the past tense.

And while some weapon tweaks probably are required to settle things, tackling the population issue more directly is by far a better approach because despite the claims of many, the weapon balance isn't hugely out of whack in most cases - and the data we are seeing is exacerbated by confounding factors like population imbalance and even public opinion on weapons.

E.g. more people use strikers because strikers have a reputation for being OP, which means people are more likely to cough up for the 1000SC to buy one than the Phoenix or Lancer. This doesn't (necessarily) denigrate the Lancer or the Phoenix, but it sure has an impact on the Striker statistics.

instead of this why not give TR weapons a DOWN recoil value? sometimes the gun will buck up on one shot but on the next shot it bucks down. this will make very little difference while doing sustained fire (because it will just create a wall of fire) but burst fire will be way more unpredictable

Were it the case that TR are predominately low-skill floor low-skill ceiling weapons and NC are predominately high-skill floor high-skill ceiling weapons then we would expect the overall statistics to be similar. Why? Because while new TR players may score better with TR weapons than new NC players with NC weapons we would expect that experienced TR players would score lower with TR weapons than experienced NC players with NC weapons. In theory, this could be balanced.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that NC weapons are not high-skill floor high-skill ceiling but rather only high skill floor. The skill ceiling in a FPS is based on DPS of the weapon- reason being that the best ttk you can achieve is set by the hardcoded DPS. This means that your ttk any opponent is limited by DPS and the best that you can get is landing 100% of your shots. NC tends to have the lowest DPS among the major weapons categories and that means that a player with 100% accuracy will do better (at least slightly better) with TR or, to a lesser extent, VS than NC. Now, you can argue how easy/difficult it is to achieve a situation where you can land 100% of your shots but the fact remains that the absolute highest level of performance for a weapon is determined strictly by its DPS.

Problem: Vulcan destroys everything
Evidence: Stats. 800rpm / 220dmg/shot / 30 round clip and 2.5sec reload time. Furthermore, the 1st shot literally BREAKS/DISABLES the Vanguard Shield, and then destroys them in about 1/2 a clip.
Solution: Fix Vanguard Shield bug, increase reload speed to 3.5 sec, decrease damage down to about 180-190, decrease rpm to 750.